rooprect What? No Gondrys on IMDb today? Well then I guess the rest of us can pack up and go home. Forgive me for being insensitive to cinematic master Michel Gondry's cherished family memories, but I'm going to have some fun slamming this film. Why? Because if nothing else, I don't want my review to bore you as much as "The Thorn in the Heart" bored me.Seriously I could only take about 40 minutes, and even that was because my dog was lying on the remote so I couldn't shut it off.All kidding aside, before I start I'd like to quote something said by the late, great Stanley Kubrick when asked if he used LSD to get his uniquely bizarre ideas. He answered, "No. I believe that drugs are basically of more use to the audience than to the artist ... One of the things that's turned me against LSD is that all the people I know who use it have a peculiar inability to distinguish between things that are really interesting and stimulating and things that appear so in the state of universal bliss the drug induces on a good trip." (Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001, 1970, excerpted from the Playboy interview, p. 346)"The Thorn in the Heart" is about Suzette Gondry, Michel's aunt. Now I would say that Michel obviously finds that subject to be really interesting. However, I submit that his subjective and emotional involvement with his aunt severely compromised his "ability to distinguish between things that are really interesting and things that appear so in a state of universal bliss." Whether LSD was involved is a different matter.The film opens with a scene around the dinner table of about 12. No one is introduced, we're just supposed to piece together who's who (incidentally, the whole documentary is shot this way... fine for family albums but not so easy for us outsiders to follow). The woman referred to as Suzette chimes in with a story. It goes on for a painfully long time because she keeps breaking into laughter in mid sentence, getting more and more hysterical with her unfinished story until the others at the table literally begin a different conversation, something about vomits and farts (I'm not kidding). Suzette eventually finishes the anecdote, but by this time everything has dragged on so long that nobody, least of all the audience, gets the point. Literally, a few people ask her to repeat the punchline. "He could've had what? ...Oh, sauerkraut? Oh haha," they laugh languidly. Sure, to the Gondry family it's an endearing moment. But to us, meeting someone for the first time and sitting through this, it's slightly aggravating. And believe it or not, that opening scene was the most eventful scene in the 40 minutes I sat watching, while carefully trying to roll my dog off the remote so not to disturb her sleep, which seemed far more enjoyable than my experience on the couch.I feel like the documentary could have benefited tremendously from an objective co-director, someone who could politely tell Michel that people don't understand inside jokes of strangers. And instead of putting the film together in a dry, historical way (chronologically beginning at 1954 and progressing year by year by year), the objective editor might have suggested to begin with something sensational and dramatic, the way even famous biopics are structured so that the audience is given a reason to invest their time watching.Is this a bad film? Certainly not. I do distinguish between 'bad' and 'boring' (often they are not synonymous). But for me, this film conjured up nightmarish memories of the times I would end up at a stranger's party, not knowing a soul, not understanding all their inside jokes, and growing more awkward and agoraphobic by the minute. I no longer go to strangers' parties, wisely. And I think I'll make it a rule that I'll no longer watch strangers' home movies. "Voyeuristic" is a word used by another reviewer, and I now understand what was meant by it. To the Gondry family, I'm genuinely happy that you have this excellent way of preserving your cherished family memories. With all due respect, I'll just put this DVD back where I found it, as if I had accidentally bumped a priceless heirloom I had no business bumping.So if you decide to watch, be ready to accept that the Gondry family is important enough to spend 84 minutes learning about. Devoid of Michel's usual creative visuals and surrealistic storytelling, this film is a very flat documentary. If the subject doesn't immediately entice you, then you're outta luck. Unless of course you manage to drop a tab beforehand.

politic1983 Switching, as he does, between music videos, documentaries and Hollywood pictures, Michel Gondry chose to focus on the life of his aunt Suzette for his latest documentary. Using his cousin's old Super 8 film footage, interviews, animation and the odd outtake that should have remained on the editor's floor, the story of Suzette's life as a teacher, moving from school to school across the 60s, 70s and 80s is told.Now, this is all very good, but why would anyone outside of the Gondry wider family have an interest in this story? This is where the faults creep in. The people involved in many of the stories are rarely introduced, leading the viewer to try and guess as to what relation each has to Gondry's aunt. This leads for quite a fractured and non-linear story, where the timeline has to be pieced together.But while the logistics are a little challenging, the more emotional side of the film's main focus, his cousin's relationship with his mother, Suzette, provide a more rewarding challenge. Probing into sensitive issues around the relationship of the pair, Gondry gives an insight unconventional family life and the issues that often remained untouched. It is perhaps Gondry's close relationship that allows him to delve into areas that an outside director would be unable to, though this closeness can also serve to alienate the viewer from those involved as the film becomes more and more personal.Using standard Gondry techniques, employing toy trains, animation and an unnecessary attempt at a music video, the documentary is put together with a light-hearted approach to some sensitive subjects. And indeed, The Thorn in the Heart is a nice, little piece into the director's family life. How important a documentary such as this is for a cinematic release is entirely up to you.www.politic1983.blogspot.com

malpeyrehugo 1st things 1st : do not expect classic gondry's work. This is much different, in a personal way, a project he did finance himself, far away from any major studios. Back to his roots, family, Gondry films his ant and cousin. They share few secrets from the past which will come back because of the camera they have to deal with ; obviously, the camera that Gondry is using. Because it's a documentary about family, Gondry had all the confidence from his ant and cousin he could go and film them and picture the details and secrets they are having/sharing/hiding. It is very human, lot of scenes in the nature. I think Gondry needed to do this film for maybe his family but for him too, so he could remember where he is coming from (which I am sure he never forget) and do the most personal work ever.

viennasold Gondry's movies are usually strong because they're visually original, creative and have a unique DIY innovative edge, while reflecting genuine humanistic tendencies.The life of the director's aunt is used here in that vein - except there's willingly little to enjoy visually: Gondry attempts to shoot a documentary and aims at a certain 'realism'. Except here, maybe because he's familiar with the cast, which would allow him to ask intimate questions to relatives in the private sphere, 'realism' becomes 'voyeurism'. Questions asked to the poor cast are just plain bad taste. And the humanistic tendencies Gondry so beautifully explored in all his previous movies are travestied in facebook-era voyeurism.A poor, disappointing 'effort' which can evoke, quite oddly, the most sadistic of Andre Gide. Except Gide is fully aware of what he's doing - which Gondry doesn't even notice.