ASuiGeneris

It was compelling enough. Really, Lancaster carries the film all the way through. Without him, the stark contrasting vulgarity and other acting was acceptable at best, appalling during moments. Also did not like the sudden change in the final lap to political themes. Yes, it was there in very subtle cues in a few previous scenes, but I'm not a politics kinda viewer and in the final lap, politics were revealed to be at the core motives for central characters and that did not appeal to me. Other than that, it was pretty to look at for sure! The lavish paintings and interior designs did appeal to me, but that doesn't warrant a high rating.

Tithe meaning: Here is another foreign film that had its title altered for the American market. "Gruppo di famiglia in un interno", the original Italian title, is literally something like, "family group in an interior". "Family Group in an Interior" could easily make sense as an English title, but of course for different reasons than "Conversation Piece", which is arguably less readily interpretable. Audiences would have to know that a "conversation piece" is a type of painting popular on the 18th century, usually an informal group portrait, small in scale and showing people- often families, sometimes groups of friends- in domestic interior or garden settings. The protagonist of the film, "The Professor", is an avid art collector and is not only someone who has these types of paintings hung in practically every room of his mansion, but also spends extensive time researching and studying them. Arthur Davis, mentioned in a minor but important in their bonding conversation between the Professor and his later "adopted" son Konrad, was a real life painter known for his conversation pieces. The two characters also debate a painting by William Hogarth in comparing his painting, "A Midnight Modern Conversation" to one by Davis.

Some definite so bad it is good moments. Some genuine laughs. The rest was pure shock value. But it was all so pretty. And quirky.

Binoche's performance was truly remarkable. Unrepeatable. And Detective Machine, the work that went into making that distinct rubber rubbing against rubber? Sound whenever he walked, it was so vexing, it actually worked.

Certainly not for everyone, as there is little logic employed. But watching it while remembering that this is indeed a fantasy and to not worry too much about it making any sense at all will make it a much more pleasurable experience for audience members. And didn't forget about the cannibalism. Evoking laughter alongside that is an achievement all on its own!

I honestly do not understand why this is so highly regarded by both audiences and critics. It felt like a made for television effort, aside from the big name actors. Perhaps I am spoiled by far more masterfully conducted thrillers like classic Hitchcock, but this really wasn't everything it was built up to be. Way too much telling over showing. I was even bored during some parts. The "big reveal" was basically told to us by a character. How disappointing. I am sure the book was much better, as is usually the case.

Not great, not bad. Not exactly good, but good enough for a few hours, probably in the background. Undivided attention might aid in better comprehension. Unfortunately, full comprehension still leaves plenty of implausibility and a few plot holes.