Eine Liebe in Montreal

I love the way both Joshua & his father rip right through the arrogant BS of religiosity & the stuffy uptight pretentiousness of the rich & powerful. Most refreshing to watch these rare & delightful characters call spit "spit."

Josh's mom is a real down to earth treat as well, while the relationship between Joshua & Pauline is really touching with its openness & authenticity.

Alan Arkin at this funniest.

THE best movie of the millenium. (Even better than "..And Justice for All").

First (& maybe only) "Feelgood" movie (ever?) that did not sink into the depths of sentimentality. Both Arkin & Woods gave great performances .

Joshua Shapiro (James Woods) is a famous writer caught in a scandal. His wife has left and his kids are inconsolable. He recalls his life starting with his childhood in the tough Montreal neighborhood during WWII. His father Reuben Shapiro (Alan Arkin), involved in some sketchy stuff, goes on the run. His mother is a performer who does burlesque stripping for his friends. Reuben gets out of prison. Joshua wants to go to the Spanish Civil War but ends up in London. Nobody wants his writing and he befriends Sidney Murdoch. His writing finally gets into the newspaper as he pursues a mysterious blonde. Pauline turns out to be the wife of a wannabe communist Colin Fraser and daughter of Senator Hornby. Her brother Kevin is troubled. Joshua would steal Pauline away and be married with kids.

This is a Canadian art-house film based on Mordecai Richler's novel. Canadian director Ted Kotcheff continues after doing the previous Richler movie. The look has more in common with a 70's movie. It's a long fictional biopic. There is limited drama or tension. It's fun to see James Woods and even better to have Alan Arkin in supporting role. The movie excels when Arkin is on the screen. This life is too rambling to be concise. There are bits of great scenes like his mother stripping for his childhood friends. This is an interesting part of Canadian cinema.

This is a wonderful movie that never sinks into sentimentality or farce. It would have been easy to overplay both of the Alan Arkin and the James Woods roles, and this movie could have become sappy or too slapstick. This is a gem of a movie that, unfortunately, probably has limited appeal. I think that it was finely written and wonderfully acted and deserves more attention that it has received.

I was a James woods fan since Videodrome.

My best friend and I went to our local movie theatre and saw this movie. As a kid but a fan of film at a really young age. My mother and I would watch movies that are now only on TMC now.

That's how I started learning film instead of watching movies.

Now I go from so bad it's good stuff to seeing techniques that were poorly reviewed to the same shots in other films to be "oh my goodness that is great". I'm paraphrasing obviously. 🙄 Anyway to rewatch this film is a conundrum ... Do I look at it as the new me sees the art or do I not and use the memory as a way to assess film now ?

This movie drew me in on one level only but made me look at Allen Arkin as another actor to follow.

So that's my dilemma.

The film to me was so out of my depth as I watched it. Then there was a sad strange feeling that I knew this story. I had seen it in standard TV series at the time but only ever touched on.

I was 17 and finally found that the joy of film is the most satisfying thing that became my escape to let my mind wander and reason to dig deep and realize that art is art and to judge a piece for its time.

Ok I think I've ranted enough.