Ismael's Ghosts

I suppose I'm lucky in the sense that unlike the other reviewers on here, I didn't pay to watch this film in a theater, but streamed it on Hulu. I approached it with high hopes since the title and brief synopsis seemed promising, but as the film went on I would get more and more disappointed. I thought the main character's film and his writing would just remain a side plot rather than eventually consume the whole thing. I was much more interested in learning about this long lost wife and his past relationship with her, but instead the movie just goes a million directions at once. We certainly learn about "les fantomes d'Ismaël" but are still left lost as to why they're there in the first place or why any of them matter more than the plot about the wife ?! Honestly this is a film that even pretentious hipsters won't have the right to say that they understood, because the film is a hot mess. Yes it may have some solid French talent in the cast, but their gifts went to waste due to a tangled storyline that never exactly gets detangled. I'm a fan of French films, but this one is just not good, sorry to say.

What did I watch? What was it about? It's an incomprehensible, tiring mess, unbearably boring, especially towards the end. I wished I could see any meaning in this crap.

My vote: 1/10.

"Ismael's Ghosts" (2017 release from France; 135 min.; original title "Les Fantômes d'Ismaël" ) brings the story of Ismael. As the movie opens, we follow the conversation among several bureaucrats at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the mysterious disappearance of a certain Ivan Dedalus, who had just started his career there. As it turns out this story is being developed in the mind of Ismael, a film maker. We get to know Ismael, as he carries on with his girlfriend Sylvie. We learn that Ismael's wife Carlotta, who mysteriously disappeared 20 years ago, and Ismael had her officially listed as "missing". Then one day at the beach, Sylvie runs into a woman she thinks is Carlotta... IS it the real Carlotta? how will this affect Ismael? and what about the movie-within-the-movie? At this point we are less than 15 minutes into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director (and co-writer) Arnaud Desplechin, whose previous movie was the likable "Golden Days" (original title "Trois Souvenirs de ma Jeunesse"). Here, Desplechin rides several parallel story lines: the complicated life and relationships of Ismael, whether or not the real Carlotta has come back, and the movie-within-the-movie. It should make for an appealing mix, but alas, you might be wrong. First of all, I just don't "get" the point" of the movie-within-the-movie, which simply doesn't seem to have any connection with the real movie--and if it does, I completely missed it. Second, the relationships that play out between the three main characters never came across as genuine or believable. And that is a darn shame for Charlotte Gainsbourg (whom I otherwise absolutely adore) in the role of Sylvie, Marion Cotillard as Carlotta, and Mathieu Amalric as Ismael. I mean, those are top notch names, but even they cannot save this movie. Bottom line: "Ismael's Ghosts" is a giant waste of acting and creative talent.

"Ismeal's Ghosts" premiered at last year's Cannes film festival, to ho-hum acclaim. Almost to the day a year later, the movie opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. Truthfully, if it weren't for the fact that this stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, I doubt I would've gone to see it. As it was, the Monday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended poorly (3 people, including myself), and I cannot see this playing longer than one week in the theater (at least here in Cincinnati). I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater (not very likely at this point), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

I saw this film up in Cambridge, with a sophisticated crowd and more than half the audience walked out.

I am all for narrative complexity, but pretentiousness and complexity for the sake of complexity is artificial and pompous.

I think the only people who like this film are self conscious lowbrow audience that simply assumes its convolution has some meaning that escaped them, or that throwing in disjointed and out of place ad frankly random surreal elements is somehow a good onto itself.

In the end, despite recruitment of solid acting talent, this is just an amazingly bad film.

How is it possible to produce such an empty film. It is devoid of any social, societal, political or economic reality. The acting is pachydermic (Charlotte Gainsbourg has the charisma of a folding chair, László Szabó can't act - it's about time -, Marion Cotillard looks like a meme of herself). The characters are all unsympathetic. That is to say, unpleasant and painful. No empathy is possible. Impressive. An edifying film to show in film schools. It has no hysteresis. It is very strong to use such big strings, neurasthenic voice-over, mawkish music, bloated and pontificating plot.

It is impossible to believe for a fraction of a second in these two female characters who are fighting for the character of Mathieu Amalric who does tons to give the impression that he is an artist (only the impression). Who could at least commit suicide, which would end the diegesis (to be studied for the remake). To be saved, a nude shot of Marion Cotillard. And for what?