mina-magdy42
i was looking forward to see this film but unfortunately i got disappointed very much coz simply i didn't enjoy it and sometimes when i was in the middle of the movie i just didn't know what is going on and there is a lot of questions left without any answers , for example , y Pierre's cousin starts to hate him suddenly while in the beginning of the movie they were fine and talking to each other ? another question .. how did Isabella find him ? and y they fell in love to each other in the first place " coz simply don't know each other " ? and y he left all things for her while he could stay in the big house he owned ?sorry but i was bored and kept looking to the timer to see when the hell this gonna end, so the conclusion is this is boring and not enjoyable one.
howie73
Following the mixed fortunes of his previous film, Les Amands du Pont Neuf, Leos Carax returned with an adaptation of Herman Melville's controversial novel, Pierre, or the Ambiguities.Unfortunately, for Carax and French cinema, Carax's film is a disaster. It may have visual flourishes and unforgettable images, but the film is a tale of two halves. While he first half is beautifully shot an d highly stylised; the tawdry second half is heavy-going and repulsive to watch, replete with brutal political statements that leave little to the imagination. Both halves seem like polar opposites. Maybe this was his intention, but Carax will doubtless lose many viewers after the second half. Catherine Deneuve is criminally underused, even though she was marketed as the prime appeal of this dire film. Although Guillame Depardieu gives a searing performance, the film s too small and delusional for his towering performance to evolve as anything substantial. The notion of tragedy is clearly evident in the film, but Carax executes his vision poorly. A far better example of such an approach is Choses Secrets, which leaves Pola X in the dust.The biggest problem with Carax as a director is his lack of subtlety or refinement as am auteur. Working with narrative does not suit his inimitable style as one of the proponents of "cinema du look', a term he most likely despises. What's problematic about his penchant for image over narrative, is the emptiness of his images for the most part. Devoid of meaning, his images are there in Pola X to engage our superficial desire to see rather than any intuition.What's most disturbing in Pola X is the unrealistic progression from dream-like scenarios to brutal, unforgiving reality. What could have been a dreamlike, ambiguous piece becomes too literal and heavy-handed and embarrassing to watch in its mediocrity. A pity, Pola X could have been more ambiguous as Melville intended.
f_helmut
At times I really wonder
when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.I also liked the acting Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.
v-hardiyanto
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.
AD
