UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

jcappy Can this failed, disjointed plot be saved? Is it is worth saving? I think so, but I am probably in the minority. I suggest that the pivotal relationship between Antoine Lavau (Depardieu) and Cecile (Deneuvre) be resuscitated. There's enough integrity in the film's early going to inspire a re-working of two protagonists. I think the trick is to avoid at all costs stereotyping, cynicism, canned emotions, and manipulative plot turns.First, Antoine is singular (original) and he must stay in character. He is not some freak of nature who needs a Hollywood re-cast. There are shy and introverted men who, often in their twenties, will experience a break-up, maybe from their first real love. A male of this mode, may weather the storm, but gradually his conviction grows that the initial lover was both rarer than what he imagined and possibly even irreplaceable. He may soon become convinced that he blew his one true chance at love. So his affective love gradually shifts back in her direction, displacing thoughts of a new relationship. He may resurrect her photos, be more cognizant of her life, adopt her preferences, and more rarely, prefer to live in more physical proximity to her.To one degree or another, such a man is under the influence of a romantic ideal. He needs to experience a sense of love, so he returns to the woman who compelled his passion. He realizes that while remarriage is a mere dream, her palpable presence gives pique to his life. He also understands that any obtrusion into her life would run counter to this new realization. It's not that she's an angel, but rather that love put on hold or bracketed never really stops.In "Changing Times," (a trite title) Antoine initially appears to be this identical romantic lover. He's very singular and the not in the least unconvincing. His face is compelling, as is the complexity of his thoughts, the certainty of his emotions. He elicits interest--there is something of us in him, something in him we can learn from, something perhaps instructive in his loneliness. We sense that if he is to actually meet with this woman of his, it will have to be by accident. I mean like why after thirty years of steady love would he suddenly thrust himself on a married woman? As to Cecile, she too belongs here as the kind of woman who might inspire such memory and lasting love. Although in many ways typically middle class, she projects an independence, a world-weary sophistication, and a realistic sense of her position in life. She hosts a radio show, exercise authority over others, and is self-directed. She is no dreamer, no romantic; she grasps what a cad her younger husband is and deals with him as it suits her. When she meets Antoine she unhesitatingly sets her boundaries, defuses his interest, and projects him as a detail in a busy life.The movie's premise works. But the unfolding fails. It's as if these grown-ups morph into adolescents. Antoine slithers out of character as if he's suddenly aware of maleness, and is amazed by it. He doesn't exactly stalk Cecile but his actions and words suggest that continuum. Now his mix of shy and bold seem like a sneaky maneuver, and he can't seem to get enough of himself. In a tete-a tete with Cecile's hunky husband, he admits to having many affairs, but of being only impersonally present in them. And as he takes on a more aggressive approach to this man's wife, his singular anonymous lover image is certainly tarnished. And thus it is that he resorts to direct confrontation, high drama, and on shy, naive guises to effectuate his tricks which serve both to ingratiate himself with Cecile and to insinuate himself into her life. And with the help of convenient plot accidents, his assumption of access to his ex-lover, is achieved in a manner hardly different than that of any other drippy dude.If his role is abandoned by Techine, so too is Cecile's autonomy. She becomes the personification of access. (There is no comedy here, not initially and not now.) When interrupted by a hapless Antoine during a radio broadcast, her rage is over the top--which in turn sets her up for an equally over the top contriteness. Which shatters her independence. And seems to rob her of her volition. Thus she becomes for Antoine a sex therapy operative--one that requires no desire, will, or suggestion on his part. And, of course, after his mud accident, Cecile is then cast as a kind of madonna nurse, and is returned to familial motherhood.So, thanks to Techine's cop out direction, and imagination breakdown, two original and interesting characters who promises much in the way of subtle drama, and character development, are sacrificed. The unknown becomes the known. Antoine becomes everyman, and Cecile is reduced to a mother and a mistress.

shatguintruo Is it possible that a passion - strictu sensu - lasts over 31 years? This movie tries to demonstrate that is possible... Antoine Lavau (interpreted by Gérard Depardieu) concomitant with his job of supervising the beginning of a great enterprise in an ancient french possession (Argel or Marocco?) searches desperately "to fix a mistake" done in his past: the fear of to be repudiated in his avowal of love for Cécile (Catherine Deneuve), in despite of both we're involved in a whirligig passion in a remote summer of '70s (by the way, to her, the first love...). Antoine, now a rich entrepreneur of (construction) line of business meet again Cécile married with a doctor (Natan) born in that place who absolutely doesn't look Cécile as a goddess, like Antoine does. This becomes patent when, in a scene where both talk and Natan confesses that he has several lovers ("of all kind, all nationalities") and he is bored with his marriage... By her hand, Cécile does not love him anymore as before, because he reveals himself as a "heman" or because he treats his own son (Sami) in a careless way, ignoring completely his emotional feelings. In face of this situation, Cécile created a shell around her and this shell is a mixture of feminism and hardness in her relationship, mainly with men. That's obvious when she meets Antoine in a hotel room, after had repudiated him more than once... An accident put them together - same that in a provisory manner - occasion in which they will try to correct, no matter how lately, the "mistake" of the past. The interpretations: Gérard Depardieu is not so well as in the other roles, but he transmit us some tenderness while Catherine Deneuve "ravissante" (charming) in her 60 years give us an interpretation firm and faithful to psicologic shadows of her character. In a scale of 1 to 10, I vote : 8.

Felix-28 I saw this film last night as part of a Catherine Deneuve festival. She never disappoints me, and she didn't disappoint me this time, but the film did. Gerard Depardieu also was outstanding as usual; he is utterly amazing in his ability to portray vastly different characters despite his utterly distinctive physical presence.I regard any film that holds my attention throughout as being basically good, and any that doesn't as basically bad. This one held my attention, so it's good. I kept wanting to see what happened next.But there are degrees of goodness, and this one was down near the bottom. At the end, I thought, "Well, what am I supposed to take out of all that?" Two former lovers may or may not be reunited; if they are, it may or may not be the result of witchcraft; the half-gay son's girlfriend is unhappy about something, but I have no idea what it it is or if it's going to get better; her sister is also troubled, but I have no idea what about; maybe something significant was said about the politics of Tangier and/or Iraq, but if so it went over my head.The hand-held camera, as always, didn't make me think about the significance of the events that were unfolding; it just unsettled my stomach by forcing me to adjust my field of vision every millisecond. When you think about it, the basic rationale for constant use of hand-held cameras is fundamentally stupid. It doesn't add realism; it destroys it. When I observe people interacting, I don't dance around them as photographers holding cameras seem compelled to do; and if I do move, my field of vision changes smoothly and, to me, unnoticeably. But when the hand-held camera moves, it jerks, and the viewer has to adjust his field of vision and then absorb the sights he sees. Bring back the good old days where the images were the focus, not the camera-work.

damonisho André Techiné sets this story of undying love against a complicated backdrop of conflicted individuals living in today's fragmented world. Essentially a simple story of a middle-aged pair whose paths have not crossed in 30 years, until one of them, still smitten and unable to relinquish his love, throws himself, unwelcome, into the life of the other. Deneuve is at her restrained best, further shown to advantage by the always watchable Depardieu. The film's other main message is that life is complex and hard, that connections are increasingly difficult to maintain, and our attention must be scattered but vigilant in order to survive. Techiné throws in so many pieces of commentary on modern life that, while the main story is relatively simple, the viewer comes away under a heavy weight, as if having watched an epic film.