L'histoire de l'amour

There is a good story and good actors but it's just too confusingly told in a jumble of flashbacks. Good cast wasted. Don't bother.

Incomprehensible.

This is a fantastic movie, full of symbols. It conveys the most diverse emotions from sympathy to admiration, from sadness to enthusiasm.

Radu Mihaileanu managed to build an amazing character, Léo Gursky with whom it is impossible not to empathize. He is like an oxymoron. You can feel both his sorrow and his positive and innocent attitude towards life. He conveys sympathy as well as dignity at the same time!

The film is also very dynamic, with intertwined plans, which keeps you focused.

In a world where relationships are consumed so quickly, what a wonderful lesson we are given by these loyal and faithful characters who decide to love one person for their whole life!

In the old world, country girl Alma (Gemma Arterton) is loved by three boys; Leo, Bruno, and Zvi. She makes Leo promise to write about his love for her. In 2006 NYC, Léo Gursky (Derek Jacobi) is a grumpy old retired locksmith. He is trying to contact his estranged author son over his autobiography and desperate to find a book called, "The History of Love". Bruno Leibovitch (Elliott Gould) is his neighbor friend. Alma Singer (Sophie Nélisse) is named after the Alma in the book. Her mother Charlotte (Torri Higginson) and her late father fell in love with the book. Her little brother believes himself to be one of the 36 righteous Lamed Vovnik in Judaism and is building an ark. She's in love with Russian boy Misha but she insists on staying friends. Her mother is hired to translate "The History of Love" into english.

I know nothing about the book. I'm sure it's a romantic epic. This film is ambitious in its ideas. This could be a great movie concentrating on Leo. There is this story about Alma Singer which does not measure up to the epic romanticism of Leo's story. Adapting from a novel is often ambitious especially when the adapter is reluctant to use an ax to chop out sections. Alma Singer's story is probably necessary for the book but not for the movie. With a great veteran like Jacobi, this needs to trust his ability to take over the screen. It needs to be a character study of this grumpy old man. This could have been amazing but it needs someone more daring in adapting the material.

My opinion---

After "Go, Live and Become", "The Source of Women" and "The Concert" - Radu Mihaileanu returns with a most successful romantic fresco, where he will evolve these characters in different periods of their life, By the carelessness, love, promises and dramatic passages of their respective lives, with all the delicacy and emotions that Radu Mihaileanu knows how to put into his achievements by making us share them. This beautiful movie is also served in the most beautiful way by a cast of the most successful brings all the strength that will make this movie really good, thanks to: "Derek Jacobi" (masterful), the young "Sophie Nélisse" (Beautiful), "Gemma Arterton" (superb) and "Elliott Gold" (perfect), plus an effective scenario, you have all the elements of a superb film that I advise of course, because its quality is no doubt, good movie time.

On can only hope that this film servers some purpose by being used in Film 101 for film students to see all the possible attributes of definitive bad adaption. I have to say I enjoyed the novel. The novel *tries* to be original, self consciously so. One gets the sense the author had made a study of non-linear timeline work and threw in some Proust and painful immigration and old age stories. Still the novel is worth a read, it is complex, and average to above average work

But the film is a complete mess. Two thirds or more of the narrative complexity and intersections, which are precisely what makes the novel interesting, are lopped away. Amazingly the film still is disjointed and jarring, and instead of being easier to follow -- now simply full of narrative holes.