Lost Illusions

It's very rare to be able to watch a 2h long literature movie without getting bored at any point.

Great cast, great adaptation of dialogues that make it a modern adaptation of Balzac while still translating the soul of it.

Lost Illusions is a movie adaptation of the classic novel by Honoré de Balzac. The movie follows the young poet Lucien de Rubempré, who naively leaves his hometown in pursuit of becoming an author. I haven't read the novel, but I understand the movie does an excellent job of staying true to the source material. Unfortunately, the constant narration can be quite tedious. It's as if the viewer isn't trusted to understand what's going on without being spoon-fed every detail.

The acting is solid all around, but the standout performance is by Benjamin Voisinas as Lucien. He perfectly captures the naïveté and arrogance of the character. The movie is also visually stunning, with opulent costumes and sets that transport the viewer to 19th century France. The dialogue is fast-paced and witty, but it can be difficult to follow at times. There are some very funny moments, but the movie is a tragedy more than a comedy. It's a long movie, but it's worth watching if you're a fan of period dramas.

Even though the movie is set in the 1800s, it has a lot of relevance to today. The portrayal of journalism and the literary world is just as relevant now as it was then. Fake news was a problem back then and the movie is a reminder that some things never change.

Lost Illusions is a well-made movie and worth seeing if you're a fan of the novel or period dramas in general. I'd give Lost Illusions a higher score if the narration weren't so heavy-handed.

I was a little scared before watching this film; I was scared to get bored, because romance in costume is not my stuff. Speaking of costume movies, this is not BARRY LYNDON but a captivating French film, which could have been made seventy years ago by an Albert Lewin, starring George Sanders, except maybe that the lead character here is not as nasty, selfish, cynical as Sanders was in his films, and mabe not only in his films... This is the itinerary of an idealistic young man, not naive but ambitious, who tries to survive in the Paris jungle: journalism, theater, publishing, politics, a cruel, superficial, cynical, rotten, insecere, opportunist world where sharks spread everywhere. I guess Claude Chabrol could have made it too, and I think Xavier Gianolli is an authentic heir ofChabrol. It is brilliant, sensitive, bittersweet and full of details of the atmosphere of this period. Adapted from Honoré de Balzac, this would be great if this kind of films could be made about more novels from Balzac or even Zola, why not? This is millions of times better than stupid French comedies for red necks where you need someone near you to tell you when to laugh. It is after all a rise and fall scheme, which makes it more interesting.

It's a 600 page novel that had to be boiled down to fit the running time of 2 1/2 hours, some minor characters had to be thrown out. The third part of the book is dispensed with--no great loss.

We are left with a wonderful satire of the popular press in France circa 1830. Graft and bribery are part of the game, and our hero Lucien is never quite sure where the next knife is going to come from that will enter his back. My favourite character is Sarfati, the claque leader, whose mob can be bought for whomever pays top dollar. The acting is superb, as you might imagine: Depardieu, de France, de Lenquesaing all acquit themselves well, and Vincent Lacoste as Lucien's changeable buddy Lousteau is marvellous. Only Benjamin Voisin doesn't quite meet the demands of the role, and he's in almost every scene. Sets and costumes are very good, and Giannoli's direction is assured.

I'm not against the use of a narrator in a movie by principle. Narration can be useful to set context, or, even better, have an interesting dialogue with the action. However, I struggle to understand what the writers of this movie were thinking when they decided that every beat of this story needed narration. I felt like I was reading a picture book. It really diminished my enjoyment of the movie. Too bad, because it's a good story, served by excellent actors (I particularly loved Salomé Dewaels) and beautiful costumes and sets. A lot of the narration could have been cut by being more creative with the script and telling us things in different ways, or by simply leaving a few things unsaid and trusting the audience to cope with some ambiguity.

I'm frankly baffled by the fact that it won the "best movie" and "best adapted scenario" César awards (admittedly, I haven't seen its competition).

Also, the little nods to our present time, mostly done by that same narration, were very unsubtle. In a better film, I might have funnier, but there they tended to annoy me.