Les fantômes d'Ismaël

Seen at the Viennale 2017: With actresses like Marion Cotillard and Charlotte Gainsbourg you have a winner anyway. Just to look at them acting is worth the movie. Gainsbourg plays the actual girlfriend and Cotillard the wife coming back to her husband after 20 years away. Director Arnaud Desplechin was present at the screening. Asked about choosing Gainsbourg for girlfriend and Cotillard for the back coming wife, he answered, he could have chosen the actresses the other way round, too. For sure it would have become a different movie. I would like to see also this other version. Sadly, it will never be directed...

I saw this film up in Cambridge, with a sophisticated crowd and more than half the audience walked out.

I am all for narrative complexity, but pretentiousness and complexity for the sake of complexity is artificial and pompous.

I think the only people who like this film are self conscious lowbrow audience that simply assumes its convolution has some meaning that escaped them, or that throwing in disjointed and out of place ad frankly random surreal elements is somehow a good onto itself.

In the end, despite recruitment of solid acting talent, this is just an amazingly bad film.

How is it possible to produce such an empty film. It is devoid of any social, societal, political or economic reality. The acting is pachydermic (Charlotte Gainsbourg has the charisma of a folding chair, László Szabó can't act - it's about time -, Marion Cotillard looks like a meme of herself). The characters are all unsympathetic. That is to say, unpleasant and painful. No empathy is possible. Impressive. An edifying film to show in film schools. It has no hysteresis. It is very strong to use such big strings, neurasthenic voice-over, mawkish music, bloated and pontificating plot.

It is impossible to believe for a fraction of a second in these two female characters who are fighting for the character of Mathieu Amalric who does tons to give the impression that he is an artist (only the impression). Who could at least commit suicide, which would end the diegesis (to be studied for the remake). To be saved, a nude shot of Marion Cotillard. And for what?

This film is a stinker. The premise seems interesting enough - a woman disappeared 20 years earlier, the husband and family not sure if she was dead. Other than that, the film goes downhill fast. The plot is boring, and the film jumps around to various sub-plots. The dialog is bad - the characters speak in a way that you shake your head and say "Who speaks like that in real life?" Not sure if it's a translation issue, but this seems to be consistent throughout the movie. It's basically a movie about the dialog, not so much the weak, unbelievable story. You really don't care about the characters. To add to the torture, the movie is over 2 hours long, so the suffering is extended. Avoid it like the plague.

As many have said, the premise of this film is very good, but it is lost in a mess of structure that would shame must university film society. It is a number of stories within a story, which lose momentum as the film continues. The main plot is the sudden reappearance of a film maker's wife after an absence of 21 years, but this is submerged by unnecessary interludes.

I watched the film at the French Film Festival in Sydney, and throughout the film people trickled out, not returning. What kept me was the excellent acting as ever from Cotillard and Gainsbourg, but you honestly wonder why and how they signed up for such a messy screenplay.

If this film was a blind date, it would talk erratically at you for nearly two hours, then leave abruptly for no reason. Avoid.