Never Ever (1996) User Reviews

francophilia! it's almost better than a travel film to paris.

[loui-in-stlouis · 15 June 2000]

watch this for sandrine bonnaire, who is marvelous as usual.

the problem is that it is written by, directed by, and starring charles finch. mr. finch is a capable actor, an onanistic director, and a putrid screenwriter. he at least has surrounded himself with great people and he lets them do their thing. the visuals vie with ms. bonnaire for best-reason-to-watch the movie. at least the movie is set in paris and nice, and there is a beautiful new alfa spider to watch and hear.

jane march is striking on-screen, but disappointing. her character is not a happy one, but even less happy is her physical deterioration. if this is a deliberate attempt to contrast with ms. bonnaire, it works. but those who adored ms. march in l'amant (THE LOVER) will be puzzled by her appearance here. to make matters worse, her lines are muffled and one of her important scenes reduces the film to vulgarity. the director's laudable attention to detail and lavish use of time still do not excuse the debasement of what is otherwise a visually beautiful film that contemplates beautiful moments.

in fact, there is only one other ugliness in the film. it is mr. finch's overuse of his own face, which, while agreeable enough, does not withstand the scrutiny. few people can write, direct, and act in the same production. this is one of the better efforts at the triple play, but it is also further evidence that it should not even be attempted.

james fox gives a wooden treatment of a wooden character, and jean rochefort likewise achieves likeability in a can't-miss role. again, this is the result of a director who can bring nothing new to the script. it should also be mentioned that the script is as empty and predictable as mr. finch's interpretation of his character. it is a valid script and a valid interpretation; but both are devoid of complexity and surprise.

beyond ms. bonnaire and the luscious latinate visual indulgences of this film, there is one more happy surprise. large parts of the dialogue take place in french with no subtitles! it is effective, and the francophiles will love it. for this, for his cast, and even for his audacity, i do applaud mr. finch.

Mishmash of clichés

[hof-4 · 2/10 · 4 October 2016]

The problem is Charles Finch times 3 (he directs, writes and acts the lead). His screen presence is smaller (by several orders of magnitude) than that of Sandrine Bonnaire; when both are on screen we simply don't notice Finch. The script is assembled from dreary clichés; future lovers meet cute, Frenchwomen are crazy about clothes and hats, Italian men want to fatten their women with pasta and expect them to pop child after child, etc. At times, clichés take over completely, such as in every line poor James Fox has been saddled with. The same happens with Jane March, who is also totally miscast.

Another sore point in the script: clearly, Finch sees his character as a sort of Nietzschean Übermensch who is not bound by the morality rules that lesser people try to mind. He is not the kind of actor that can pull this off.

Now for the positives. Bonnaire shows her usual charisma and screen presence and does the best she can with cliché lines. Finch's direction rises above his acting and writing abilities; the story moves forward at a steady pace. However, his obsession with himself does serious damage to the movie; we are shown time and again how he "fights his demons" by running in place at his apartment (at terrific virtual speed) and punching into air, and we see him at least twice race in his jammies after his beloved through beautiful (and, of course wet) Parisian streets. Inexplicably, we are shown many times a shot of one of Paris' Egyptian pyramids. Does it mean anything?

Eight minutes into the movie Julian Sands walks into the set, delivers a few lines and is seen/heard no more. Obviously, he should have been hired as the lead on the spot.

See it -- you'll be glad you did!

[laurel21000 · 7/10 · 11 March 2008]

There is a lot about this film to like. I liked its intensity. It was a compelling work. I liked enormously how it showcased the beauty of Paris. I liked that it was bilingual. Hearing both French and English being spoken was very pleasing and added a lot of texture to the film. I liked much of the cast.

But most of all, what I liked best and what made the biggest impact on me was the presence of Charles Finch himself.

He's a really wonderful actor. I'm disappointed (to put it mildly) to learn that this has turned out to be his only starring role to date.

Finch radiates charisma from the screen. Considering that he, from what I have learned, had far and away the least acting experience of any of the others in the cast, he not only held his own but pretty much, in my opinion, charisma-wise wiped out all of the others.

In fact, the lack of experience probably worked in his favor. It made the charm less practiced and, therefore, the story felt more real. And it made me, as the viewer, keep wondering, Wow, who is this guy anyway?

Although there was a scene at the beginning of the film that was off-putting because it seemed to be such a self-conscious and manipulative attempt at being provocative for provocative's sake, the story itself then served to get things back on track.

Unfortunately, it was also the story, specifically the ending of the script, that finally sabotaged and derailed the film. This same film I had been experiencing as so compelling and enjoying so much. Until it fell apart at the end. At least for me.

The story concerns an extramarital affair. Sandrine Bonnaire plays the love interest.

Her character is a professional woman in her mid to late thirties.

She becomes involved with a married man displaying not even a hint of a troubled conscience at this fact. That would indicate that Bonnaire's character has participated in this circumstance before.

And yet when complications arise, the script has this woman turn into a drama queen. A drama queen with a very strong sense of entitlement.

Even before the script turned her character into someone who lacked credibility, Bonnaire did not deliver in this film -- at least from my perspective.

This was surprising because I'd never before seen Sandrine Bonnaire as anything less than excellent. For example, in Regis Wargnier's film, East/West, she was superb. She always brings such depth to a part and is captivating to watch. And yet here, she was subpar. Again, only my opinion. Maybe it had something to do with the language barrier. I don't know. But Bonnaire did not have her usual mojo. Nowhere near it.

In contrast, Charles Finch's acting and presence continued to be very effective throughout the entire film but the sensibility behind the ending of the script (which Charles Finch wrote)left me disaffected, disheartened and rueful.

Yeah, he's a fascinating and charismatic looker but maybe not all that great of a guy in real life was the sentiment I was left with by the end of this film.

Finch, as the scriptwriter, attempted to spin his character's behavior as not only understandable but (gag) admirable and even attempted to sell it as somehow (gasp) noble.

Um. Sorry. Not buying it. It ruined the film. And it tainted respect for Charles Finch himself. Fairly or unfairly.