Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

MartinHafer The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object."Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.

Martin Teller I really enjoyed Pialat's VAN GOGH, a quiet, languid look at the last two months of the artist's life. While I wouldn't say Altman's take on it follows a standard biopic formula, it does lean more in that direction. It's got a lot more drama, a lot of more of those "jeez, this guy was nuts" moments (and a lot more too-clever "Ah ha, there he is painting that famous work!" bits). We see a number of angry, frustrated outbursts but don't really get a feel for what drove the man in his work or even in his torment. Still, it's a very watchable film with a compelling and not-too-hammy performance by Tim Roth. Paul Rhys is also good in a more subdued role. Although the film is generally rather conventional, there are a few interesting touches, most memorably the film's opening as one of his sunflowers paintings is auctioned for millions, intercut with a scene of the artist living in poverty. A little too on-the-nose, but effective. Interesting score as well.

federovsky Terrific production design here gives a real feel for the time and the grime that Van Gogh lived in. Tim Roth plays him as half clown, half dangerous lunatic - popping his pipe in and out of his mouth, shambling along as if he is unable even to walk properly, barely in control of his erratic emotions. He is more convincing when autistically immersing himself deeper into his work than in the real world. The scene where he is drawing the prostitute in his room one night is mesmerising, ravishing in its squalor, and utterly convincing.Theo's story fleshes things out a bit, but his presence is sketchy and intermittent and his.descent into illness (syphilis) becomes increasingly melodramatic as his face gets whiter. There is no accounting for the brothers' closeness when they are such different personalities, constantly grating against each other, and a little backstory would have been a illuminating. The Arles episode with Gauguin has a certain nightmarish authenticity, as does his last act - a spontaneous despair that will stick in my mind forever.

talporat Long time I searched for this movie, and when I fainly found it I was very enthusiastic to see it. I have a great connection with Vincent Van Gogh, and I would like to see every movie that was made about him, ever. Before I saw "Vincent and Theo" I saw "Lust for life", another movie about Vincent, with Kirk Douglas. and I have to say it's very different. "Vincent and Theo" Focus on the relationship between Vincent and his brother. And it also shows Vincent's life in a very realistic and different film I saw about him. Last thing-the actors are incredible! Especially Tim Roth. he's perfect as Vincent.