Pacifiction

There are some serious qualities there. First of all, who doesn't want a trip to Tahiti?? There are "beautiful shots", as they say: waves, skies, nature, Benoît Magimel pensive on the beach, sometimes on an absolutely magnificent music score. It's a film that can be just admired as is.

It's also a film that can be used to admire Magimel, to hear him speak, wavering, a little mushy, always on the verge of tripping over his feet... It's quite fascinating.

But his performance is not enough to compensate for a slow mise-en-scene by default, rigid, flat, desperately sterile. It is the disease of a certain European-Asian festival cinema which under-cuts its mise-en-scene out of ease and habit. Despite everything, there are some exciting ideas here and there, never to be forgotten, a woman framed in a certain way for no particular reason, that's something but that's not much.

And then what do Magimel and the others really have to say anyway? The story is of very questionable interest. He is a high commissioner of the French Republic who navigates between local councilors against a backdrop of rumours of a resumption of nuclear tests in the region... I've heard of more exciting stories.

Hype has blinded me again, folks... I love slow burn thrillers like The Day of The Jackal, where the actions are shown in the movie step by step, but without losing its suspense and intrigue. I knew that Pacifiction would be slow... but not THAT slow!

This was a huge dissapointment, almost 3 hours of nothing. Serra is nothing more than a pretentious and a egomaniac director, and this movie shows that.

Pure boredom, there wasn't a mystery or even a bit of suspense to keep watching this thing... nothing.

The visuals are the reason why I gave this film a 5/10. Too good for a waste of film this is.

The visuals were so good... that led me to watch this atrocity to good cinema.

God... I'm so angry right now. This is the kind of trash that makes people go watch Marvel instead, the same stupid movie everyday instead of searching for something new and original. Because of the fear of finding a pretentious and boring film like this.

Having seen Liberte, I was somewhat ready for the longeurs in this, and the prioritisation of mood over drama and plot.

However, there is a plot of sorts (and even several groups of "plotters" if you go along with the nuclear context and the local determinists) and even a conclusion - no matter how much one might be hoping for something more dramatic. Whether the improvisation-heavy dialogue helps is a moot point.

I've never been to the island in question, but can easily visualise the it's-always-cocktail-time mood and surfeit of ennui that comes across here, making me sorry for everyone trapped in this environment.

Not recommended, as such, but interesting.

I was bored today and decided to look up the most recent Cesar Award nominees and winners. That's how I ended up with this "motion picture" and I decided to go ahead to see it because I WRONGLY thought i would be thrilled for the 2hrs45mins but Alas!, tis was not to be.

It should have been made into a documentary enlightening viewers of the French nuclear tests that were conducted in Mururoa and the physical and environmental consequences that followed. Rather than making this a feature length film and putting us through this travesty. My rating is this high only because of the scenery.

It felt like a bad April fools day prank.

This is a truly boring film. It's long, seemed pointless, had scenes that went on forever to no good purpose, had essentially no characters to speak of, and made little sense. I can enjoy long, leisurely paced films, like "The Traveling Players" or "Satantango," but there has to be a reason to be patient and a payoff for doing so. There is neither here.

At the screening I attended, the director, beforehand, said that the last 45 minutes was really special. That was a bait and switch, since they were just like the rest of the film. If anyone goes into this film expecting anything at all like a thriller, they will be disappointed, and disappointed for a rather long time.

The director, speaking afterwards, said he wanted to avoid cliche. In one respect, he failed miserably. The dialog, I believe, was improvised by the actors, rather than being scripted. As a result, it was banal, repetitive, and pointless. There is no more tedious cliche than weak improvised dialog.

It's common for one reviewing a long film to say something like "there's a good 90 minute film in there." Here, there's a mediocre ten minute travelogue in there. There are some pretty shots of Polynesia, and a good surfing sequence, but you pay a heavy price to get to those, and if you're willing to watch a long, weak film to see some nice shots of Tahiti, you're better off with the 60s version of "Mutiny on the Bounty."

After I got home from the screening, I cleaned my cats' litter boxes. I found that experience both more entertaining and more intellectually stimulating than "Pacifiction."