kosmasp No matter how engaging one person is, no matter how charming, no matter the looks or the spoken words, there is always something that can be defined as flaw. And while Clive Owen is more than charming and might come across as easy going (especially considering Binoche characters behavior), there are many flaws with his character too. But can those two find a way to bridge the gap between them? You'll have to watch the movie to find out.The chemistry between the lead actors is there and you can feel why there would be an attraction, even more so after the first encounter which does not seem to be going that well. But while the main focus is on the romance, there is also the "war" between words and pictures. And since you're not able (yet) to put a graphic review of a movie down (on IMDb at least), the question is: On who's side are you on? And will you switch sides during the course of the movie? Very intelligent and nicely written, witty dialog, good turns and changes and generally entertaining, while not losing its focus throughout

pattyb52 When I saw the plot summary for this film about the eternal battle between the effectiveness of words vs. pictures as the best means of communication, I thought it might be hard to pull off. Kind of like making a movie about a reporter. Their day-to-day work might look repetitious and rather boring to those not in the industry. I was afraid that might be the case for Words and Pictures. But to my surprise, the plot held up for the most part. The disappointment for me came with the personalities of the main characters. Clive Owen and Julietter Binoche are two of my favorite actors, but Completely unlikeable here. The stereotyped drunken, obnoxious over-the-hill teacher/former published author (Owen) and the eternally depressed chronic pain suffering teacher/former famous artist had no redeeming qualities in my opinion. By the last part of the movie when it became obvious the script called for them to be warm, honest human beings, it was just too late. What a shame, because otherwise it could have been a much better film.

SnoopyStyle English teacher Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) is dismayed at his students' lack of passion for words. He's a disheveled drunken former promising literary star. Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche) is the new art honors teacher at the rich prep school. She's a well-known artist who is newly suffering from debilitating arthritis. She has moved to the country to be near her sister Sabine. They are both misanthropic and combative from their first encounter. She doesn't trust words. He's in danger of losing his job. The two teachers' constant back and forth turns into a battle of whether words or pictures are more important. There is also gifted shy artistic Emily being courted by class clown Swint.It's an interesting idea for a rom-com or something serious. It does need to pick one side or the other. The rom-com works for the most part except for some serious turns. Emily and Swint's drama takes a very ugly turn. Valerie Tian and Adam DiMarco are both good but that section feels like the movie takes a 10 minute interlude into another movie. Owen and Binoche elevate the movie by their acting. The problem is that the movie struggles to pick what it wants to be. It would probably be best as an inspirational teacher slash feel good rom-com movie. However it wallows in the characters' problems a bit too long. The movie goes on and on. It's possible to go darker and more serious. The movie simply needs to narrow its focus and pick a side. Also the climatic competition is not climatic at all. It is really boring and flat. It almost brings the movie to a complete standstill.

Davalon-Davalon I love Clive Owen and Juliette Binoche, so it was with great disappointment that I saw this imitation of someone's idea of a movie run on endlessly without merit, point, purpose, reason or destination. I'm not quite sure where to start. The concept? Why would anyone get involved over the merits of words versus pictures? Something that is written, something that is painted... they are their own unique art forms. Why would anyone, especially someone as smart as Juliette Binoche, in real life, and as her character Dina Delsanto, engage in the bizarre tit-for-tat war manufactured by Clive Owen's Jack Marcus? She wouldn't. And more importantly, as this imitation movie unfolds, Clive's character, an in-denial raging alcoholic/blocked writer, harasses her and, more disturbingly, stalks her. Any woman in her right mind would have this irritant fired from the school and arrested. But no, she ends up allowing him to seduce her. Her apparent excuse is that she has rheumatoid arthritis and she doesn't know if each time she has sex will be the last time. So, in a way, she only did it for the pleasure of having sex, which I can't fault her for, but why with such a painfully obvious loser? The film tosses us to and from between the worlds of Jack, an honors English teacher and Dina, an honors art teacher. Jack is obviously enamored of every word he says and thinks he's a great teacher, but he can't show up on time and he is so behind on grading papers that one of his students intelligently challenges him when he asks the class to do an assignment, pointing out that she needs to take his honors English class in order to get into university, and yet he hasn't bothered to grade the last three assignments. To this Jack barks at her do another assignment. Huh? On what basis? I'd complain to the principal and Jack would be either shamed into providing the grades, reprimanded, or dismissed. Dina, on the other hand, comes to the school with a chip on her shoulder as she struggles with rheumatoid arthritis. She's called "Ms. Icicle" -- and Juliette obviously put in time researching her role as someone struggling with a physical disability. I liked her because I felt she was real. Jack, on the other hand, was so repulsive that I didn't care if he walked into oncoming traffic. Also, the film tries to weave into two "B' stories, only one of which might be helpful. Jack has a young son who is apparently a runner or cyclist, based on his choice of attire. The fact that he is also a writer (or was) gets short shrift... but that piece of information will come back to haunt all who watch this questionable endeavor. The son, bright and sober, attempts to engage Jack in conversation and to set up a time for Jack to meet the son's girlfriend. But Jack is too interested in feeling sorry for himself, drinking, smashing things in his house, and harassing people with stupid word games in which he challenges people to keep expanding on the number of syllables in a word. Again... the point? The other "B" story involves "Emily," played by Valerie Tian. Valerie has a very pretty, open, honest face. She doesn't seem to have a lot of expressions, but she has potential to be a good, if not a great, actress. In this film she plays a student who is unmercifully stalked by a fellow classmate who is madly in love with her. She doesn't share his feelings. He apparently draws an unflattering picture of her (which was impossible to make out, so I could not determine what the hysterical hubbub was about) which he posts on the Internet. Emily eventually turns to Dina for support, and Dina gives it to her in the only way she knows how: bluntly, cruelly and honestly. Okay, all that's great, but this is ANOTHER movie. This "B" story is woven throughout almost the entire film, wears thin quickly and does not in anyway enhance the main story. As we draw towards it's trumpeted and obvious conclusion, all I could think was "Jack Marcus" was a delusional alcoholic stalker who might have had a gift for writing at one time (this last point is debated endlessly throughout the film), but... so what? So what that he had a gift? So what that his wife left him? The school board overlooks so much of his behavior that it is really a slap in the face to anyone intelligent. The movie goes on way too long, and during the entire time I didn't feel a single emotion for anyone, although I initially could feel the depth of Juliette's character because of her extensive acting gifts. But since I felt the initial premise was essentially a bad joke, and since Clive's character was so mean, delusional, cruel and selfish, I could not find a single reason to invest in anybody in this film. There were times that I was distinctly aware of the camera, of the camera angles, of all the work involved in making this a film... and yet... where was the magic? I should have been transported; instead I kept being yanked from the Jack train to the Dina train to the Emily train. I was so black and blue after two hours that I had to put the movie out of my mind for two days before I could comment on it. Overall a questionable endeavor that wastes a lot of time and talent and resources and doesn't present an argument worth addressing.