Grand Tour

Portuguese filmmaker Miguel Gomes' (TABU) latest cinefile creation was a Cannes Winner for Direction and that country's official Oscar submission.

It's a heady combination of travelogue and dual personal journeys. We are told by narration that in 1918 Edward (Goncalo Waddington) escapes from his fiancee Molly (Crista Alfiate) and embarks on a 'Grand Tour' of Asia (Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, The Philippines, Japan and China). The location footage is clearly of the present day, which emphasizes the transitory nature of time and experience. There are separate narrators for each of the five countries. The audience doesn't see Molly until past the halfway point in the film as she traces Edward's travel paths.

It's a visually dense production, shot on 16mm and primarily in Black & White. The story is spare and largely secondary to the sensory experience. Waddington's Edward is quiet and taciturn. Alfiate is quite the opposite, vivacious with a distinctive laugh/chorttle.

Gomes' film isn't out for any grand statements, but if one can give themselves over to his leisurely vision, it's one to savour.

Never have I ever been so annoyed at the cinema, but stayed for the whole thing out of respect for other viewers.

This movie has no plot, no relatable characters, no compelling story. The comedic reliefs are utterly unfunny (really, why does anyone laughs at women cursing at men anymore? Peak boomer humor). It does not evoke any feelings other than a deep feeling of irritation and wasted time. It's really oddly paced and quite frankly, boring.

Some shots are pretty (if you've never been to Asia) and I have to appreciate the use of traditional asian music.

However, it's not enough to make up for how badly it is structured and how really pointless this movie is. One of the worst films I've ever seen (and I'm usually quite generous with my ratings).

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.

Miguel Gomes Grand Tour is a visually mesmerizing film that feels like a love letter to Asia, celebrating its rich cultural heritage and landscapes. Every shot is carefully composed, with meticulous attention to framing and timing, creating a sense of immersion that invites the viewer into the world of the film. The use of real locations adds depth and authenticity, making the setting feel like an integral part of the story rather than just a backdrop.

The first chapter follows Edward as he flees from his fiancée, Molly, and embarks on a directionless journey. This section feels disconnected and almost lost, much like Edward himself. It's as the film is reflecting his emotional state aimlessly wandering without a clear path, allowing chance encounters to dictate his course.

In contrast, the second chapter, which follows Molly's determined pursuit of Edward, has a more defined sense of purpose. As she chases him across Asia, the narrative feels tighter, with more focus and direction. Molly's clear objective helps guide the audience through her journey, making it easier to connect with her.

The dialogue, primarily in Portuguese, was a refreshing highlight, and I found myself wishing for even more of it. It's rare for me to see a film where Portuguese takes center stage, and it adds another layer of uniqueness to the film.

In the end, Grand Tour is a beautiful, contemplative work, filled with stunning visuals, soundtrack and a clear sense of care in every frame. It's clear to see why Gomes was awarded Best Director at Cannes his passion for both the story and the setting is palpable in every moment.

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.