My Golden Days

The main impression I gained about 'My Golden Days' is a bit more care could have been taken in casting the three actors who play the lead character - at least far as looks go. When we first meet him, Paul Dédalus, a French diplomat, is played by Mathieu Amalric, with his distinctive, 'lived-in' face. We then see him as a child played by Antoine Bui - who is facially so similar to Amalric they could be related. But as a young man, Paul is played by the handsome Quentin Dolmaire, who looks nothing like Amalric and Bui. If Bui didn't look so similar to Amalric this aberration wouldn't be so noticeable.

But anyway, the story: returning to France after almost a decade abroad, Paul comes to the attention of the intelligence services because someone with the same name and date of birth has been discovered in Australia. As Paul is questioned, we flashback to his childhood living with his lesbian aunt, to an eventful trip to the Soviet Union and to his student life, but most of all we examine his relationship with the captivating Esther, whom he wins over with his pseudo-intellectual gobbledy-gook.

Young Paul is that staple of French cinema, the student who spends too much time thinking. Esther is that other overly-used staple, the unhinged woman. This sort-of prequel to director Arnaud Desplechin's 1996 'My Sex Life... or how I got into an Argument' contains nothing that can't be found in hundreds of other French films. But there's good acting all around; Dolmaire and, as Esther, Lou Roy-Collinet are easy on the eye and their cast of supporting characters interesting. If I have any complaint, it's that I would have liked more - or indeed, any - explanation as to why the child Paul disliked his mother so much, and perhaps more screen time for Amalric - he appears several times in-between the flashbacks of the first third of the film, then suddenly disappears for the rest of it; it's quite noticeable. Where did he go?

They say its a prequel to the 1996 film 'My Sex Life' that I haven't seen, but this looked good and its not. I'm not sure how much one has to be familiar with the original film, though it does not matter much I think since it is a prequel. Because everything starts here and follows there. So I saw it, and I wanted to like it, but not fully impressed. The story was told in chapters. The opening was like some kind of a spy thriller, but soon when the episode 'Esther' begins, it turned into a romance drama.

A man who has been investigated when another person with the same identity was found. So he reveals his school day's events, followed by his first girlfriend and complication surrounding it he had faced. That, how he had won her over the older boys and about his close friend, till leaving them behind to work in the central Asia. Mostly it is a love story with some twists in the affair, but how it all ends still remains mystery even after the narration ended.

The issue is it is not detailing anything, just reveals events of a youngster's romance life. Particularly the end was not good. So I think that's why I need to see the first film, resuming the narration could continue from where this one concluded. I leave (_b_l_a_n_k__s_p_a_c_e_) till I saw that and update this review, if I change my stance over this one. Even if I didn't like, still I would update it.

Meanwhile back to the review; it is like a French version of 'Flashbacks of a Fool'. Technically, there's no fault in this, only the screenplay did not convince me. The actors were so good, no doubt its a well made film that some people would enjoy it and I hope you are one of those.

6/10

It is one of the better told love stories I've seen on the screen.

It's one of those movies that's about a relationship running it's course from beginning to end. Very similar to movies like 9 Songs and Love 3D, but no where near as sexually graphic.

Maybe because the movie is about a now forty five year old Paul reminiscing about when he was nineteen and had an on again off again relationship with sixteen year old, Ester. As the film title suggest, Paul looks back with found (and little obsessive) memories of her.

I thought the main characters as well as the supporting cast were people really interesting to look at. though the movie has a nice look to it that adds to the feel, I never fully embraced the period piece this film is, and surprising the Hip hop score did not help one bit.

But overall I like it a lot.

Actually one of the greatest films of all time, with a lead actress possibly more beautiful than Brigette Bardot, and super intelligent writing. High drama, very realistic noir cinematography, many pitch black night scenes that look as good as the day scenes. Very intense, great acting all around, the main actor is mainly the only one who may be a bit over the top for some people. The lead actress is a Ramona-esque dream girl. Theres tragedy as well as comedy, and nice ambient and orchestral music. It's a character story, and a coming of age, but many characters get a chunk of their own screen time.

This movie was a bit of a chameleon for me. Initially I found this story of Paul Dedalus's recollections of his youth disappointing. The story of Paul's broken family life was short and cryptic. The story of intrigue in Russia was interesting and begins to tell us something about Paul. The main focus, the recollection of his relationship with Esther, did not draw me in. Yes they were beautiful, but almost too much so, and their interactions did not seem authentic.

My thoughts evolved on further consideration. Paul is recalling the peak experiences from his youth, but how accurate are his memories? Were he and Esther really that beautiful? As another reviewer pointed out, his appearance at that age seems inconsistent with his younger and older selves - an accident of casting? Was he madly in love with her? His actions and decisions suggest otherwise. Did he fail to appreciate the importance of this relationship because of his youth and inexperience? Maybe, but consider the start of the movie.