Grand Tour

Never have I ever been so annoyed at the cinema, but stayed for the whole thing out of respect for other viewers.

This movie has no plot, no relatable characters, no compelling story. The comedic reliefs are utterly unfunny (really, why does anyone laughs at women cursing at men anymore? Peak boomer humor). It does not evoke any feelings other than a deep feeling of irritation and wasted time. It's really oddly paced and quite frankly, boring.

Some shots are pretty (if you've never been to Asia) and I have to appreciate the use of traditional asian music.

However, it's not enough to make up for how badly it is structured and how really pointless this movie is. One of the worst films I've ever seen (and I'm usually quite generous with my ratings).

Portuguese filmmaker Miguel Gomes' (TABU) latest cinefile creation was a Cannes Winner for Direction and that country's official Oscar submission.

It's a heady combination of travelogue and dual personal journeys. We are told by narration that in 1918 Edward (Goncalo Waddington) escapes from his fiancee Molly (Crista Alfiate) and embarks on a 'Grand Tour' of Asia (Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, The Philippines, Japan and China). The location footage is clearly of the present day, which emphasizes the transitory nature of time and experience. There are separate narrators for each of the five countries. The audience doesn't see Molly until past the halfway point in the film as she traces Edward's travel paths.

It's a visually dense production, shot on 16mm and primarily in Black & White. The story is spare and largely secondary to the sensory experience. Waddington's Edward is quiet and taciturn. Alfiate is quite the opposite, vivacious with a distinctive laugh/chorttle.

Gomes' film isn't out for any grand statements, but if one can give themselves over to his leisurely vision, it's one to savour.

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.

This evening I have been to the cinema and seen Miguel Gomes' "Grand Tour 2024"

"SHOW DON'T TELL!" - IS a well known rule of storytelling, yet still this film chooses to use a narrator telling important parts of the story without playing them out!

Curious? Considering seeing it?

Don't! Unless you appreciate: the WEIRD, ABSTRACT and uncomprehensible?

7 (Seven) people in the audience walked out of the movie theatre during the film!

ONE next to me FELL ASLEEP and I would have let him sleep - IF it wasn't for him SNORING LOUDLY!

A QUOTE IN the film is: - "the Orient is uncomprehensible for white men!"

BUT ALAS I believe that some from the audiences comments after are correct: - "Pretentious crap"! And "frustrating ending"!

I - "soldiered through", because I am driven by curiosity and a desire to comprehend!

BUT it is an illogical mess: the: "English or American" characters speak Portuguese and some Asians spoke French! Yet they have conversations in respective languages!

It's supposed to be happening 1918, but suddenly we're in present time, cellphones modern cities and scooters!

Generally - DON'T!

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.