Grand Tour

Hailed in Cannes for innovative direction, I cannot agree. "Grand Tour" comes as an arty project which would have been better as a travelogue. Alas, the filmmaker wanted to give us a story and lifted an idea from the short story "Mabel" by W. Somerset Maugham, though he forgot to tell tell us about it. The short story is only 5 pages long, which is why the "story" is told to us in a way that feels like a joke told by a person with a speaking disorder. You already know what comes next but out of politeness you have to wait. This is deadly boring and some people fled the movie after the first half an hour and I wish I had followed their example. In between the narrative which is set to be in 1917 and filmed in b/w, we get a lot of contemporary stuff in color. Yes, the camera work is brilliant and the editing too, therefore I give it a four instead of a two.

A poem movie, reflexive about human condition, the human trivia that humans try to make as a huge and it's nothing. We humans make things important when nothing is important than our souls, the comfort for the spirit. The movie invites us to reflect about what is important to us. The different journeys through Grand Tour show the importance for us to keep faithful to ourselves. Why do we need the wealth positions? Why do we need to keep doing what is unpleasure? Does it worth while to die for what we believe? Maybe yes or maybe it doesn't matter the end but the moment only by itself and what we get at each time; future is only a ghost which decorates our minds towards the momentum.

A film about a couple from 1918 as they trail each other within the Indochina after a failed rendezvous inter-sped with the current world. Narrated in the language of their setting.

Another uneven film. I personally do not think that the 'experimentation' worked. It does not compliment the other elements of the film on any level AND it was just a weird distraction. The pseudo-documentary travelogue lacks a connecting tissue to be honest.

I am also quite mixed about the story overall.

It made more sense as the film went on, especially after getting the second main character takes over BUT the initial story could have been more knowingly hinting of the 2nd half of the film. Its far too concerned in creating the mystery that it loses so much power on its own. Its just sometimes feels so fleeting.

The second half is where the strength of the film really relies. The performance can be distracting (the constant annoying blowing raspberries was so bad) but it is where it made sense and has life. Molly has a sense of meaning AND actual flow that puts a focus in this film. You actually feel that this tour is going somewhere AND maybe not quite well. The initial silliness is suddenly filled with the conscious melancholy. Molly is desperate because she truly is doomed.

Soft recommendation.

This evening I have been to the cinema and seen Miguel Gomes' "Grand Tour 2024"

"SHOW DON'T TELL!" - IS a well known rule of storytelling, yet still this film chooses to use a narrator telling important parts of the story without playing them out!

Curious? Considering seeing it?

Don't! Unless you appreciate: the WEIRD, ABSTRACT and uncomprehensible?

7 (Seven) people in the audience walked out of the movie theatre during the film!

ONE next to me FELL ASLEEP and I would have let him sleep - IF it wasn't for him SNORING LOUDLY!

A QUOTE IN the film is: - "the Orient is uncomprehensible for white men!"

BUT ALAS I believe that some from the audiences comments after are correct: - "Pretentious crap"! And "frustrating ending"!

I - "soldiered through", because I am driven by curiosity and a desire to comprehend!

BUT it is an illogical mess: the: "English or American" characters speak Portuguese and some Asians spoke French! Yet they have conversations in respective languages!

It's supposed to be happening 1918, but suddenly we're in present time, cellphones modern cities and scooters!

Generally - DON'T!

And I don't mean the story alright? The artistic choices are downright baffling in a way that made me continuously ask myself "why". Why go through all this trouble to tell this story? Why this story? Why the odd language solutions? Why the anachronism? Is this about colonialism? I ought to be about colonialism because these people are terrible right?

I try to relax and enjoy the cinematic experience but experience what? The photo is good, the costumes are nice, the parts from modern day east Asia could have worked in a documentary. It's soup and meatloaf and dessert mixed as one dish. I would have liked it more if it was just abstract. Now I'm just annoyed, provoked and thinking whether I'm thinking too much or not thinking enough. At least the story will lead somewhere, right? Whelp, never mind.