Grand Tour

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.

A poem movie, reflexive about human condition, the human trivia that humans try to make as a huge and it's nothing. We humans make things important when nothing is important than our souls, the comfort for the spirit. The movie invites us to reflect about what is important to us. The different journeys through Grand Tour show the importance for us to keep faithful to ourselves. Why do we need the wealth positions? Why do we need to keep doing what is unpleasure? Does it worth while to die for what we believe? Maybe yes or maybe it doesn't matter the end but the moment only by itself and what we get at each time; future is only a ghost which decorates our minds towards the momentum.

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.

Hailed in Cannes for innovative direction, I cannot agree. "Grand Tour" comes as an arty project which would have been better as a travelogue. Alas, the filmmaker wanted to give us a story and lifted an idea from the short story "Mabel" by W. Somerset Maugham, though he forgot to tell tell us about it. The short story is only 5 pages long, which is why the "story" is told to us in a way that feels like a joke told by a person with a speaking disorder. You already know what comes next but out of politeness you have to wait. This is deadly boring and some people fled the movie after the first half an hour and I wish I had followed their example. In between the narrative which is set to be in 1917 and filmed in b/w, we get a lot of contemporary stuff in color. Yes, the camera work is brilliant and the editing too, therefore I give it a four instead of a two.