VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,7/10
3020
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe passengers on a Mediterranean cruise enjoy their luxuries as a small family struggles with overbearing media attention.The passengers on a Mediterranean cruise enjoy their luxuries as a small family struggles with overbearing media attention.The passengers on a Mediterranean cruise enjoy their luxuries as a small family struggles with overbearing media attention.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 5 vittorie e 2 candidature totali
Agatha Couture
- Alissa (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as A. Couture)
Mathias Domahidy
- Mathias (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as M. Domahidy)
Quentin Grosset
- Ludovic (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as Q. Grosset)
Maurice Sarfati
- (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as M. Sarfati)
Nadège Beausson-Diagne
- Constance (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as N. Beausson)
Dominique Devals
- (segment "Des choses comme ça")
- (as D. Devals)
Marine Battaggia
- Florine "Flo" Martin (segment "Quo vadis Europa")
- (as M. Battaggia)
Recensioni in evidenza
It was eagerly awaited for years,the trailer which was the whole film in fast motion looked ravishing, and it seemed as if in this,perhaps his last film,Godard would deliver his final testament,a summation of all the themes which have run through his work for the last fifty years.From the beginning it looks absolutely stunning.In its high def cinematography the colours are gorgeous,the Mediterranean setting recalling that of Le Mépris ,but whereas the latter film was a profound meditation on European culture and civilisation,here the characters spout banal platitudes about politics or philosophy as the ship sails along past various cities; in the Spanish section there is a scene of a bullfight,in the Italian section a clip from a Rossellini film,it's that predictable.
In the final section the film switches to one of Godard's favourite subjects,the daily routine of a family with young children who run a petrol station and have for no apparent reason a pet llama.Here finally the film shows some kind of rapport with its characters but it is already too late.Yet despite its faults it still exhibits all the hallmarks of Godard's style,the brilliance of his framing and editing,the crucial way sound plays against image,but the feeling persists that perhaps he has no longer anything to say.
In the final section the film switches to one of Godard's favourite subjects,the daily routine of a family with young children who run a petrol station and have for no apparent reason a pet llama.Here finally the film shows some kind of rapport with its characters but it is already too late.Yet despite its faults it still exhibits all the hallmarks of Godard's style,the brilliance of his framing and editing,the crucial way sound plays against image,but the feeling persists that perhaps he has no longer anything to say.
A Jean-Luc Godard double feature for me this evening. The first was Alphaville. This film, reported to be Godard's last, is a far cry from that.
It was shot entirely in digital, and the colors are breathtaking. It was meant to be seen in the theater, according to Godard, but I had to settle for video. There are numerous technical "glitches" in the film, and they were meant to be there.
Most of the film's text is in French with a smattering of German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Godard added subtitles in what he termed "Navajo English" at the bottom of the frame, which were as unhelpful as they were meant to be. The film is about a failure to communicate.
This is one of those films where the critics are far more enamored than the general populace. It is considered one of the top films of 2011 - almost the top ten. The people would disagree.
It was shot entirely in digital, and the colors are breathtaking. It was meant to be seen in the theater, according to Godard, but I had to settle for video. There are numerous technical "glitches" in the film, and they were meant to be there.
Most of the film's text is in French with a smattering of German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Godard added subtitles in what he termed "Navajo English" at the bottom of the frame, which were as unhelpful as they were meant to be. The film is about a failure to communicate.
This is one of those films where the critics are far more enamored than the general populace. It is considered one of the top films of 2011 - almost the top ten. The people would disagree.
Far to be a Godard admirer, I was real seduced by this film, a mix of cultural references about Mediteranean area, a good pledge for language as obstacle of understanding, eccentric, innovative, absurd in essence, proposing characters and theirs memories and believes , but not exactly a story.
A film about time and masks and past and facts as pieces of puzzle , it is a provocative invitation to viewer to create his explanations or - and doubts.
For me, the old watch is the main scene defining this film who remains a clash by fragments of doczmentary, stains of kitsch and rediscover of past. All, in essence, in the most honest manner.
A film about time and masks and past and facts as pieces of puzzle , it is a provocative invitation to viewer to create his explanations or - and doubts.
For me, the old watch is the main scene defining this film who remains a clash by fragments of doczmentary, stains of kitsch and rediscover of past. All, in essence, in the most honest manner.
Film socialisme (2010)
BOMB (out of 4)
How does one go about explaining Jean-Luc Godard's FILM SOCIALISME? I guess you could say that the director just throws at us various film clips. Some take place on a ship. Some take place in Egypt. Some just seem to be random shots of people walking around. Some are film in beautiful HD while others are filmed on what appears to be a very old cell phone. The subtitles are often full of mistakes. It could be that the words are put together to where it's hard to read them. It could be that the subtitles aren't really telling us what the characters are saying. Was there a point to this madness? I think there are two possibilities. One is that Godard wanted to drive people to suicide so he made this film. The other theory of mine is that he wanted to make a film so horrid that his followers would still rave about how great it was. Either way this here is a pretty worthless film and it's not that it's horrible because of a horrible filmmaker. No, it's horrible because the filmmaker knows he's making something that is nothing but a waste of time. The reason Godard does this is beyond me but sitting through this film is quite unpleasant and it makes one realize that this film is so bad that you couldn't even recommend it to those who love bad movies. I'm not going to lie and say Godard is one of my favorite filmmakers because he isn't. There have been highly respected films of his (like ALPHAVILLE) that I simply hated. With that said, I could see why some would be drawn to it. With this movie it's just pure garbage and I must admit that I find it funny reading so many reviews that call this a piece of art and one of the greatest films of the decade. Reading Roger Ebert's review states that Godard showed this film in a four-minute version by playing it with the fast-forward button on high. This here might have been the greatest idea the director ever had.
BOMB (out of 4)
How does one go about explaining Jean-Luc Godard's FILM SOCIALISME? I guess you could say that the director just throws at us various film clips. Some take place on a ship. Some take place in Egypt. Some just seem to be random shots of people walking around. Some are film in beautiful HD while others are filmed on what appears to be a very old cell phone. The subtitles are often full of mistakes. It could be that the words are put together to where it's hard to read them. It could be that the subtitles aren't really telling us what the characters are saying. Was there a point to this madness? I think there are two possibilities. One is that Godard wanted to drive people to suicide so he made this film. The other theory of mine is that he wanted to make a film so horrid that his followers would still rave about how great it was. Either way this here is a pretty worthless film and it's not that it's horrible because of a horrible filmmaker. No, it's horrible because the filmmaker knows he's making something that is nothing but a waste of time. The reason Godard does this is beyond me but sitting through this film is quite unpleasant and it makes one realize that this film is so bad that you couldn't even recommend it to those who love bad movies. I'm not going to lie and say Godard is one of my favorite filmmakers because he isn't. There have been highly respected films of his (like ALPHAVILLE) that I simply hated. With that said, I could see why some would be drawn to it. With this movie it's just pure garbage and I must admit that I find it funny reading so many reviews that call this a piece of art and one of the greatest films of the decade. Reading Roger Ebert's review states that Godard showed this film in a four-minute version by playing it with the fast-forward button on high. This here might have been the greatest idea the director ever had.
I'll admit that I've only seen a handful of Jean-Luc Godard's movies. "Film socialisme" is the latest. Very bizarre movie. In fact, it doesn't really emphasize a plot. It's hard to tell what the movie's emphasis is supposed to be, with the focus on a group of people aboard a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Maybe Godard wanted to address the use of certain places as tourist meccas, but I couldn't be certain. With current events in the world, it's probably significant that the movie includes Palestine.
I'd like to see the rest of Godard's movies, but I doubt that I'll ever be able to truly understand what sort of point he was trying to make with this one.
Watch for singer-songwriter Patti Smith in a brief appearance.
I'd like to see the rest of Godard's movies, but I doubt that I'll ever be able to truly understand what sort of point he was trying to make with this one.
Watch for singer-songwriter Patti Smith in a brief appearance.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe film did not include traditional English language subtitles for releases in countries that spoke such language. Instead, the subtitles were in "Navajo English", a translation that baffled many critics and audience members.
- BlooperSomeone claims that Napoleon founded the Comédie-Française in 1812 in Moscow. Actually, it was founded in 1680 by Louis XIV.
- Citazioni
Rebecca (segment "Des choses comme ça"): [dialogue continuity] You're absolutely right: I don't love any "people." Not French, not North American, not German. Not Jewish people, not black people. I love only my friends... When there are any.
- ConnessioniEdited from La corazzata Potemkin (1925)
- Colonne sonoreMamita mia
Performed by Ernst Busch
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Film socialisme?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Film Socialism
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 42.925 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 4526 USD
- 5 giu 2011
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 222.079 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti