spenycjo

Honestly, what a disappointment. Every. Single. Sentence. Spoken. Like. This. S-l-o-w-l-y. It made me just about jump out of my skin (and I can watch a four-hour silent movie without losing interest for a minute).

I haven't written a review here in ages, but this movie needs a warning label.

I've seen all three of the stars give fabulous performances so it must have been the director. Here, Redgrave's performance is so weird I couldn't figure out what she thought she was doing. Fox and Thurman could not have known what they were entrusting to the film stock-- performances in an acting style from the distant past...only slower.

And the story is so clichéd - out-of-date clichés, not even current ones! - that it was painful to watch. There *can't* be any spoilers, the only element of surprise being that you can't believe the filmmakers would actually dare do anything so obvious.

Watch "Enchanted April" for what this might have been.

Apparently Coco Chanel was an unbridled egotist who gave no credit where credit was due and whose sympathy was reserved for herself.

Since this was a production of Lifetime, a network not known for its steely-eyed looks at real life, I must assume that was not the impression viewers were meant to carry away with them. Presumably, had there been more sympathetic moments to be portrayed, they would have been included.

On the other hand, this production passed over some rather interesting material, such as her cohabitation with a Nazi while Paris was occupied during WWII. I guess there was no way to give *that* the Lifetime treatment.

There are other interesting myth-busters in the NY Times review (link under the external reviews)...but I had watched and disliked this movie before I read it. I found the woman who played the young Chanel rather bland, and not even Shirley MacLaine's performance was any fun. Watching Chanel bully her employees and ignore their loyalty isn't my idea of entertainment.

This movie may not be perfect, but it's fun if only because it touches so many cinematic bases: sword-and-sandal, mysterious Eastern ways, soldier buddies, heroic trek (and at least one "surprise" that might count as a spoiler if described, here but you'd have to have seen very few movies not to see it coming from miles away).

What makes the movie extraordinary, however, is its most remarkable performance, that of Thomas Sangster, who displays intelligence and an astonishing gravitas as the child ruler of the Roman Empire. There he is, up against Sir Ben Kingsley and Colin "Darcy" Firth, and in my humble opinion quietly blasts them off the screen...while playing a 12-year-old! (He was actually 17 during filming.) Though of a different ilk, it's as mesmerizing a performance as Haley Joel Osment's in "The Sixth Sense."

I'll watch anything he's in.