ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

maurice yacowar There are two films here. One is the lyrical short buried behind the end credits. An establishing shot of Mt St Victoire metamorphoses into the series of Cezanne's increasingly abstracted oil paintings of that mountain. As it recalls Picasso's (and later Lichtenstein's) series of increasingly abstract representations of a bull, it helps to explain Picasso's quote: "Cezanne was the father of us all." This montage of Cezanne's shows — but doesn't enunciate — his revolutionary genius as an original artist. Unfortunately, the titles distract us from the images and most viewers walk out during the sequence anyway. What could have been the core is a throwaway.Then there's the film narrative itself, which entirely omits any explanation of Cezanne's specific importance. We see some of his major works and his exclusion from the establishment but we get no clear sense of what exactly made his art important. Even the film's title veers us away from him to the perspective of his lifelong friend Emile Zola. Such a glaring omission or bias can only be intentional. That is, this film putatively about Cezanne and Zola is not really about their respective arts and achievements at all. Cezanne's artistic breakthrough and Zola's naturalist novels and his unfashionable defence of Alfred Dreyfuss are just alluded to, not explored. They're just part of the setting, like the top hats and cravats — and all the beautiful young nude women.Writer/director Daniele Thompson has rather other fish to fry. To wit, the human failure of the conventionally successful male. She uses these two towering male authorities as a case study in the pathetic neediness and shallowness of the male ego. It's a feminist's anatomy of a classic bromance, with Cezanne as Butch, say, and Zola as The Sundance Kid. There's even a gal-pal to absolve them of any hint of homophilia. The working class Alexandrine passes from Cezanne's mistress/model to Zola's wife. Thompson assumes we know of the importance of the men so she opts not to explore or explain their work. Instead she exercises the familiar conventions/clichés of the artist's dilemma. The Romantic Artist (Cezanne) flouts all artistic and social convention and seems doomed to the purity of poverty and obscurity. In the other corner, the compromised artist bends his passion to the winds of the day, to succeed in the marketplace (Zola). Their disdain is mutual.In an invented anecdote, our heroes first meet in a schoolyard when young Cezanne rushes in to save Zola from bullies. It's love at first fight. That's how their passion will continue. With another lad who shortly disappears, the boys grow into men, at home in the Paris streets and cafes, chafing with ambition and struggling to survive. The friendship survives through — not despite — the two men's passionate arguments and lengthy periods of separation. Zola hates but envies Cezanne's libertinism, eventually surrendering himself to his new young laundress who gives him the children his long-suffering Alexandrine couldn't. Cezanne believes that Zola exploited Cezanne's life and character to crack the bourgeoisie and find fame and fortune. To Cezanne, Zola exploited him the way he himself exploits his models. This is a story of two successful creators who failed at life and humanity. Both are so insecure that their successes can't attenuate their self-loathing (Cezanne) or smugness (Zola). In their last scene together Zola doesn't know Cezanne hears him publicly dismiss the painter as a "genius, but stillborn." Cezanne weeps for days at Zola's death because their feeling for each other never found an acceptable form. Though both men constantly discuss their girlfriends past and present — equally marginal — neither has any true feeling for their supposedly beloved. They neglect them in favour of fresher, shallower mistresses. The painter is enchanted with the colours and shapes of his wife's body while painting her, but shows no interest in the real woman before him. Zola puts a form of this complaint by Alexandrine into the novel that leaves his friend feeling ultimately betrayed. The one woman artist Berthe Morisot appears briefly to flash her bosom and laugh off Cezanne's insulting proposal of a snuggle. As Thompson knows, art has always been the male's preserve, where boys will remain boys however old and successful they may become. They remain fascinated with the malleable outer form of women and too terrified to approach their individuating depths. So they save their passion for each other — carefully camouflaged and suppressed for respectability. Zola's "Cezanne and me" is really about the aloof, needy little Zola himself, hiding his airy superiority behind his literary naturalism.

Paul Allaer "Cezanne et Moi" (2016 release from France; 116 min.) brings the story of the ups and downs in the long friendship between French writer Emile Zola and the French painter Paul Cezanne. As the movie opens, we are in "Medan 1888", where Zola is awaiting the arrival of Cezanne, after not having seen each other for 2 years. We then go back in time to "Aix en Provence 1852", as we get to watch how they meet each other in 6th grade and become inseparable friends, Before we know it, we are in "Paris 1960" where the two are struggling to make it. At this point we're 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from veteran writer and (later in life also) director Danièle Thompson, who is now in her mid-seventies, if you can believe it. Here, she brings us the story that on its face could be fascinating: how 2 legends from the 19th century interacted with each other over decades. Is this a true story? I have no idea, and the movie does not open with the usual "Based on a true story" or "Inspired by true events". But that is not the problem. The problem is in the script writing, which is way heavy and wooden, resulting in us the viewers watching acting performances that simple do not convince us or get us emotionally connected or invested in any way, shape or form. When at one point Cezanne gets mad/upset at Zola, it feels fake and very much "acted". In that sense, certain stretches of the movie feel like watching a theater play, rather than a movie. On the plus side, the scenes that play out in the south of France (Aix) are pure eye candy and provide a much needed boost to the film. Also noteworthy (for my anyway) is the excellent original movie score, courtesy of French composer Éric Neveux. But bottom line is that for me this movie feels like a missed opportunity, considering the potential involving large personalities of not just Cezanne and Zola, but other contemporary eventual celebrities appearing in the movie (Auguste Renoir, Guy de Maupassant, Eduart Manet, and more)."Cezanne et Moi" opened this past weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Tuesday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay for a week night (about 10 people). Given the lack of critical acclaim or positive overall buzz, I can't see this playing in theaters very long, so is this movie sounds like it could be of interest to you, you're more likely to check it out on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray.

writers_reign This is Danielle Thompson's sixth time behind the camera in seventeen years and, as a great admirer, I have watched them all. Though a more than accomplished screenwriter with umpteen credits to her name she has, until now, always collaborated with her son Christopher when also directing but here she goes it alone. Cezanne And I is, far and away, the most sumptuous movie she has ever shot with scene after scene drenched in impressionistic imagery and in addition she has peppered the support with the finest actors such as Sabine Azema (with whom she worked on her debut directing effort La Buche). As is to be expected the philistine at filmsdefrance has savaged it which is, of course, all the more reason to welcome it.

richard-1787 You wouldn't miss much if you watched this movie with the sound off. Some of the cinematography, especially of outdoor scenes in Provence, is just astoundingly beautiful. Some is very reminiscent of Le Château de ma mère and the scenes in la garrigue.The acting is all fine. Guillaume Canet is a fine performer and does a good job, but he is not the seriously obese and not handsome man that the real Zola was.The big problem here is the script. It starts with an imaginary meeting between Zola and Cézanne in 1888, two years after Zola permanently alienated the painter with his novel L'Oeuvre (The Great Work of Art). It then moves back and forth between the present and various scenes in the two men's past friendship. There is nothing wrong with that as a format, but the dialogue is way too stereotypical. If these men had been so pleasant, their friendship would not have come to an end. There is no real attempt to explore why Zola turned on the Impressionists, yet that is really the center of the story.So, my recommendation would be to watch this with the sound off.