I don't usually write reviews, even when I really disagree with what's being written. There's no accredited reviews for this movie and it's clear there's a bias going on, with reviews being written at the same time by friends and family. Don't blame them, but it's not very subjective.
I watched this film the other night and it wasn't for me. Very pretty to look at, but you can't go wrong in picturesque France. Lots of painters, like Van Gogh, went there for the light.
It's a good idea, not very original, but it seems to buckle under its own pretentiousness. At times I thought the director didn't understand what the writer was meaning. But he's the same person! Perhaps he was taking on too much by doing everything and being the camera man also? All three jobs needed improving. The pace of the movie is at times so slow and never different and then further slowed down by inserted shots of the slow countryside, to remind us where we are. Slowville.
Sometimes it is earned by the actors and shows there is potential here for something better. Christian Mackay is the only one I had heard of. He was so good as Orson Welles and is completely different here. Occasionally Mckay looks bored, but I kind of agreed with him. I think it's strange the reviews here only seem to go on about the girl. I thought Charlotte Vega got better as the movie went on, but she doesn't rescue the part from being cliched and doesn't have much more than her looks on screen. I don't know why he's interested in her when the other girl seemed more exciting. The other actor mumbled his lines and was always crying. He seemed boring. No match for Orson Welles. Is it inexperience that made it so dull?
