Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

secondtake Paradise Found (2003)Paul Gauguin is a great artist, and his work is daring and beautiful. So whenever the movie lets the work show through--and it does several times--it rises to its best. And the man playing the artist, improbable as it is, is Kiefer Sutherland, who does a decent job. It's hard to say to what extent he is true to the real man--how can anyone know?--but he combines intensity and craziness in good measure.And, to keep on the good notes, it's actually not so bad how German-born Nastassjia Kinski handles the Danish wife of Gauguin, Mette-Sophie. Several other characters make brief appearances, the one most famous is Pissarro played by Alun Armstrong, who I didn't know, but who is strong enough at making the Impressionist slightly out of touch with the changing tides of art. In fact, what the movie does accomplish is show some sense of the art scene in Paris from Gauguin's point of view, and Gauguin's friendship with Pissarro as a catalyst to his becoming a serious artist.The story is told in interspersed flashbacks, which are distracting and almost arbitrary. It begins with Gauguin's arrival in Tahiti, then jumps back 17 years to Paris, then to Tahiti, back and forth uncountable times. And without reason, except to chop the movie up, as if a chronological telling would be dull. More troubling is the depiction of Tahiti (and other islands in French Polynesia). It plays loose with facts. Historically, the islands were largely ruined and in disease from the colonists, not the idyllic paradise shown here, infested with a handful of soldiers and an excessively zealous Christian missionary. The struggle of the islanders to preserve their religious icons is overemphasized, and the struggle of Gauguin to land women and young girls for sex is underemphasized. He's passionate and troubled, broke and dirty. That is, he's an artist, through and through.So it gets a bit tiring. And in fact, between all the little eruptions of energy and conflicting emotions, very little happens, really happens. And it's filmed plainly, to the point of being dull, cutting from person to person in conversation as if by formula. The sets are well done and sometimes quite beautiful, and they should have inspired a more intense visual approach. As the paintings themselves should have, too.

jotix100 This film, as far as I can remember, never had a commercial run here, or at least, this movie probably went to cable right after it's release in other countries. The idea of watching a biopic about Gauguin intrigued me since this painter had a turbulent career and his paintings, especially his Tahitian ones, revolutionized the art world.As it has been pointed out by other contributors to this forum, Paul Gauguin had a difficult life. He was never clearly understood by his wife, or the general public he tried to conquer. He was a passionate man who left all the comforts in order to pursue an ambition that never gave him the happiness or economic security that others attained.The screen play, not being linear, doesn't add much to the story. We are constantly taken back and forth, knowing little about the man. Paul Gauguin's family life was an unhappy one. His wife Mette never clearly understood him, nor stuck by him when he abandoned the brokerage house. Mette appears as a cold woman who never shared her husband's passion for the life he embarked.Kiefer Sutherland's interpretation of the painter can go so far; he is hindered by an uninspired screen play. As far as his struggle with the local priest, who clearly wants to take the natives' culture away from them, is only a distraction. Actually, we see very little about the passion that consumed Gauguin during his time in Tahiti as he spends very little time doing what he went there for, in the first place: painting!

c-bwhit Can anyone tell me of another film on Gauguin's life? While not as passionate as Lust for Life (van Gogh), I enjoyed seeing Paradise Found, and I saved it & have watched it several times now. I wanted it to go on longer.In my 30s I painted several oils, & seeing this has inspired me to get out my brushes again. I wish more artists lives were available. William Blake, Turner, and others. PF was made by Australians, & I bet Hollywood would have changed the story line even more.

soymilk But let's face it, only two very select demographic groups were likely to be interested in the first place – firstly, Gauguin enthusiasts and, secondly, insomniacs like me who'll still be awake to catch this kind of obscure, unknown of picture when satellite/cable TV airs it in the early hours.I don't know much about the real life Paul Gauguin, so I can't really judge for myself how historically accurate this thing is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's taken a few liberties along the way – I mean, what historical movie hasn't? (You ought to skim through a couple of films about the English Civil War to see what they've done to the real-life Oliver Cromwell). But regardless, at heart 'Paradise Found' is a weak film striving to be stronger all the while, and in some ways that is something to be admired. It definitely does have things on its mind, and a message all there and waiting to be revealed - it's just not sure exactly how it wants to say it, and that's the movie's major stumbling block defined. Some pretty interesting issues and talking points are skimmed upon but go understated - generally, this is about religious and cultural tolerance and the importance of staying true to your personal dreams, but the screenplay doesn't have enough confidence to speak out loud enough on either topic. Added to which, so little weight is given to Gauguin's own personal philosophical musings on these issues throughout that when they finally come they feel like more of a tacked on afterthought, and never allow for any truly pensive impact. There are also too many flat supporting characters who could've done with a bit more polish and substance in order to give it more contextual support. Nonetheless, there were enough aspects of 'Paradise Found' I liked to make it well-worth the viewing – namely, Kiefer Sutherland. His performance as Gauguin is really something – a strong lead can do wonders for even the most sheepish of movies – and I'm glad to see that people here have at least been giving him credit for it. We follow Gauguin as he quits his job in Paris as a stockbroker and tries to make it as an artist, soon learning that there are no easy roads to instant success. So he decides to got to Tahiti for his inspiration – actually, due to the non-linear structure of the film, we know this by the very opening scene. Two stories, one of the past (Gauguin's life in Paris), one of the present (his life in Tahiti), are neatly interwoven and told almost simultaneously. Personally I'm not going to criticize 'Paradise Found' in this respect – as far as I'm concerned it was one of the screenplay's biggest merits. For all it was worth, it managed to 'shake up' the story somewhat and latch onto my curiosity, and as soon as I'd sussed out the formation of the film I was genuinely curious to know more – if anything, just how this wealthy family man could have ended up in such a position, as well as where he'd go from there. This is open to dispute, but I seriously doubt that this same narrative would've worked any better in the conventional format.Nobody is going to argue with the aesthetic qualities of this film – visually speaking, it's a real blessing, capturing the natural splendor of those colourful tropics to the core. And it isn't entirely lacking in human emotion. Gauguin's ever-increasing conflict with his worldly wife doesn't quite manage to stir up any deep feelings within, which is a shame because it's treated as pretty much the central focus, though his relationship with his youngest daughter is a lot more involving, and provides the movie with a few genuinely emotive moments that could surprise you.All in all, 'Paradise Found' is too slow-moving and unsure of itself to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's still a perfectly light and refreshing enough experience for anyone willing to look past those problems. And while it may not go down as an instant classic amongst fans of Kiefer Sutherland, following the cool but cold mechanics of his usual action thriller routines like '24' and 'Phone Booth', I appreciate his gumption for trying something different. After all, it's ideal as a movie for the early hours - worth watching if you're still awake for it, but perhaps not quite so getting up for.Grade: C+