Nemo

From the very outset this makes a poor impression. Arnaud Sélignac's direction is brusque and forced, resulting in pronounced delivery and acting that feels distinctly unnatural, and decidedly brisk pacing that immediately feels inappropriate and outright awful. The dialogue is all but nonsensical, not in terms of being Dadaist or satirical but more in terms of making little to no sense, and making leaps that - should one know no better - would give one the idea that lines or scenes were cut out from in the middle of others that may be only seconds apart as they appear. For that matter, maybe editor Tom Priestley is also to blame for overly curt editing, yet even individual moments are rather flummoxing. One emphatic line to greet us as the narrative first picks up just a few minutes in almost made me pause, for I couldn't be more confused at the non-logic and in-universe implications of child Nemo's remark that "it's all in color." What is this movie, and how did Sélignac secure the casting of recognizable stars including Harvey Keitel, Carole Bouquet, and Dominique Pinon, and more?

Granted, 'Nemo' is a a fantasy film, and we can generously assume that the power of imagination could lend to storytelling that's scattered or off-kilter, or refuse more ordinary, straightforward sensibilities of fiction. Yet the doing here seems to share less in common with the whimsy of Terry Gilliam or Steven Spielberg than with the total obliteration of rhyme or reason that was Catherine Breillat's confounding 2010 slop 'Sleeping beauty.' The difference is that where Breillat's stumble was chiefly in its slapdash narrative, here it's more about the other characteristics of Sélignac, Jean-Pierre Esquenazi, and Telsche Boorman's screenplay. Perhaps one might reasonably say that the considerations here echo how dreams can flit to and fro without consistent, traceable progression; then again, even the most outlandish dreams I've ever had, and remembered, were more cogent than the exploration here. David Lynch's 'Mulholland Drive' is arguably more cohesive. Anyway, none of this excuses those weaknesses I've already observed, nor the other instances of acting that's airy and aimless.

In fairness, the sets are gorgeous. So are the costume design, hair, and makeup; even the lighting is joyously smart and inviting, and the practical effects. Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is warm and lovely, making every odd and end very easy on the eyes. Some of the acting comes of better than other examples (sorry, Seth Kibel; what's that phrase about not working with animals or children?). There are terrific ideas in the story, even dancing as it does from one notion to another, and in the scene writing, and I wish only that the script were more careful so as to make better use of those ideas. Mind you, there are also ideas here that are just questionable or plainly bad, so the scales unfortunately balance out. And one way or another we have to weigh all these qualities against the more tawdry or senseless elements, and there are so many of the latter that considerable upper limits are placed on the entertainment value. It's hardly that 'Nemo' is altogether bad, but it's definitely not great. If you want fun fantasy fare, you can get it elsewhere easily enough.

The picture is pretty much all over the place. While some facets are admirable and the entirety is enjoyable in some measure, in too many ways the result is sadly less than convincing. Taken as a whole the plot is also weirdly simplistic, and lacking in substance. I suppose it's all decent enough for something light and uninvolved. If you're looking for carefully made, raptly absorbing, intensely invigorating cinema, though, I regret to inform that you need to go elsewhere. Check out 'Nemo' if you like, and have a good time with it; for better and for worse, the cast sure seemed to. Save it for a lazy day, though, and don't get your hopes up, because when all is said and done there's just not much enduring worth here.

I saw glimpses of this film when I was about 10, but my young brain couldn't handle it for more than a minute at a time, so I only saw a total of five. It gave me Stendahl Syndrome. Recently, with the DVD release ( a pretty dull, full-screen effort with burnt-in Dutch subtitles, but its the best we can hope for from such an obscure film) I was able to satisfy my curiosity. You will either love it or hate it, I was close to tears by how beautiful it was by the end (which is as obscure as the rest of the film). What is it about? You tell me. Certainly the impossibly beautiful Matilda May is worth the price of admission alone, but along the way we have the best representation of The Nautilus ever committed to film and production design unlike anything you've seen before. There's no logic, and possibly the makers simply filmed the writer's childhood dream, but its a precious, indispensable gem and if your none the wiser after reading this review, that's what you'll feel like by the end of the film. It doesn't make sense, it just feels right.

Released in Australia under the much more descriptive (and apt) title "Dream One", this movie has been at my top 3 or 4 since I saw it back in about 1993. So much did I like it I hunted for, and finally found, an ex-rental VHS, which was in not very good condition. I dreaded each time I played it, it would be the last ...

Until, almost by sheer accident I saw the DVD in a shop. Pow.

Like a really good dream, it all seems to make some kind of sense at the time, but in the cold light of day, there is nothing left but bewilderment, and a longing to "go back" into that safe and secure land, where there are no questions, only comforting answers.

A type of "coming of age" experience where the man-child Nemo (Seth Kibel) is precipitated, via a faulty elevator in his home skyscraper, into a nether world where in the daytime, it is always twilight, and at night you can hear the stars roar. No sunshine, just red and blue light, outlining without necessarily illuminating. (In a nod to "The Wizard of Oz" the film format changes from blue and white to amazing colour.)

He discovers, as every boy would dream, a submarine beached and apparently deserted. He meets Cunegond (Charlie Boorman), a rather graceless young twerp who is just as lost as Nemo but won't admit to any weakness, and has a "pet" human sized monkey named ... "Monkey" (Dominique Pinon). Nemo rescues a beautiful young woman named Alice (Mathilda May), Princess of Yonderland, from the ocean, and falls in love with her (as any man-child would).

In the ensuing adventures he encounters the Magician, Mr Rip (Nipsy Russell), Legend (Harvey Kietel) a Zorro-like hero, and eventually a rocket ship, piloted by the mysterious Rals-Akrai (the aethereal Carole Bouquet). He is so much in love with Alice he tries to grow up and eventually become the child-man (Jason Connery).

Other characters, fusions of Nemo's real world and this dream unter-land come and go, in an almost ballet-masque fashion (Observe Rals-Akrai as she converses with world-weary Count Danilov (Michel Blanc) on the steps of the rocket ship.)

Unlike a dream, this movie can be returned to at any time, and even after a decade of viewing (usually every 2-3 months) it still induces a delicious sense of languorous ease.

The soundtrack (Gabriel Yared) is a perfect complement.

Don't try and understand this frankly surreal movie, just allow it to wash gently over you, and enjoy the sensual and sensuous experience, with its erotic undertones.

Mathilda May, you can enter into my dreams any time.

First this is a totally biased rating of 10/10, simply because I saw this film at such a young age and it stayed with long after I forgot the title. In fact if my father had not come into the room and remarked, 'That's Sean Connery's son," I probably would have never found it again.

The film starts with a boy being told a bedtime story and later that night having a nightmare about his parents dying in a car crash, which jolts him into action.

He runs into an elevator and there he descends into his own Oz. A dream world that looks like a pantomime set and that is populated with several different children's stories archetypes.

The film is a romance more than anything, but one for children and it operates on its own child-like logic. Some things happen just because they do and everything is exaggerated. The heart of it still lingers with me today and that ending, a dream you never want to end.

Probably not for everyone but I love it.

I first saw this film in 1985 and I liked it very much, it was written by Telsche Boorman daughter of director John Boorman, Who produced Dream One - Nemo. The story is an adaptation of "Little Nemo in Slumberland, by American cartoonist Winsor McCay. The special effects are a bit cheesy as you would expect in a low budget arty sort of film from the early 80s, But it has a great deal of charm. The story is dreamlike and childish, but it has a certain flare. I really liked Katrine Boorman's character the perpetually bored Countess Duchka. Also a very young and alarmingly ginger Charley Boorman is in this film. It's a shame that Jason Connery's film career didn't go very far, he looks the part in this, His acting in this? Well, I didn't hate it. Harvey Keitel plays it like well… him!

I must say that Mathilda May's performance as Alice was a bit insipid, but she too looked the part.

Nipsey Russell's Mr Rip, the Prospero magician character in Dream One could have been played a little more understated but he still came up with some profound moments. Dream One is an odd little arty film which you'll either hate or love, it resonated with me enough for me to buy the DVD and watch it again after 30 years.

Cary.