Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

zdraveius Pablo Picass-, Spanish painter. 1943 in Paris occupied by German troops in the whole world speaks English. How much illiteracy in America be if all movies, regardless of location or origin of the action characters are spoken in English? What are Americans, anyway? A lot of people of all nation, close to everywhere, most of them without school, without education. A brief history of the nation and without anything special. Generations do not know how to write or read, not many know that there is anything outside of America and English. And yet, the rest of humanity is always reported in America. Worryingly decadent. If any director even accidentally sees these lines, he may contact Mel Gibson on his congratulations on his films spoken in a language other than English.

OsbourneRuddock I found this a highly disappointing film in that it seems to focus almost entirely on the misogynistic side of Picasso's personality, and his selfish insensitivity towards others. While these aspects of Picasso no doubt existed (his treatment of his children was appalling) the film fails to portray a rounded depiction of the man or what drove him. This very one-dimensional and oblique angled view is no doubt due to the fact that the film is based on the memories of his disillusioned wife, and I am reminded of the book written by Deborah Curtis about her husband the singer Ian Curtis, in which she whines on about the domestic reality of their relationship but offers virtually no insight into his art - which was surely the most interesting thing about him. The problem is that the relationships which these women have with their husbands is based on love and its commitments, and has nothing to do with their art or creativity. The world is full of brutal and misogynistic people, but what makes Picasso interesting is what he created. To make a film about an artist which ignores the inner imagination, psychology, and creative aspect of that person is pointless and uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins offers a fairly convincing performance, but this just isn't enough. For an artist biopic with more depth and substance I recommend Love Is The Devil (about painter Francis Bacon).

operamask The movie is about Francoise Gilot, not about Picasso. It is not intended to tell Picasso's story. Picasso was brilliant, spectacular, the living center of the world of art and a sexual magnet. Women wanted him and, king that he was, Picasso viewed their adoration as no more than his due. Francoise Gilot, a talented painter in her own right - but no Picasso - lives for ten years a life which for her is absolutely worth the pain. And when the pain is so grave that she will surely be overwhelmed, she stands up and leaves. The pain doesn't go away instantly, but it does go away, in time. In one memorable scene, Gilot, at home with the baby, questions Picasso's absences, his obvious womanizing. He tells her in no uncertain terms that he will do as he chooses, that his life outside their home is none of her business. She has no right to question him. He doesn't say, "Take it or leave it," but that is the unmistakable message. She takes it, for a few more years, and another child. It would be interesting to know whether Gilot, who was born in 1921 and is apparently still with us, harbors regret. I cannot imagine that she does. Of course she would have enjoyed that ten years better if Picasso had been able to love, in some recognizable way. But would she trade that life for one less magnificent? For one that would not be a good movie? Hardly.The acting is of course perfect. Anthony Hopkins becomes the man Picasso. Natascha McElhone, Julianne Moore and Susanna Harker tell us the truth. Well paced, finely directed, this movie tells a riveting story. It is very, very good.It is perhaps worthy of note that many of the negative reviews of this movie are written by men. Picasso was not just difficult; he was a Difficult Man.

dbdumonteil Anthony Hopkins is a very gifted actor,nobody can deny,but ,he was beginning to do any job going:playing Hannibal,Nixon and Picasso,it's much ,too much !Besides,James Ivory 's majestic talent ("Howards end" "remains of the day" "A room with the view" "Maurice") had inexorably waned."Jefferson in Paris" was already unsatisfying,smug and overblown.Still,it was entertaining."Surviving Picasso' is not.Only five minutes -let's be generous- are given over to the process of creation.The essential revolves around Picasso's relationship with women;this is neither rewarding nor entertaining,being trite,hollow and devoid of emotion , violence or/and tenderness.Word to the wise:people interested in Picasso's art -which is more interesting than his private life!who cares?- should try to see Henri-Georges Clouzot 's "le mystère Picasso" (1956):Unlike Ivory,Clouzot films the REAL Picasso while he is creating.He paints on a sheet of glass and we can follow every lick of paint.