Ismael's Ghosts

I watched the whole film, but still have no idea what the story is about. The film starts off interesting, but becomes increasingly disjointed as time goes on. I cannot understand what it is about towards the end.

As many have said, the premise of this film is very good, but it is lost in a mess of structure that would shame must university film society. It is a number of stories within a story, which lose momentum as the film continues. The main plot is the sudden reappearance of a film maker's wife after an absence of 21 years, but this is submerged by unnecessary interludes.

I watched the film at the French Film Festival in Sydney, and throughout the film people trickled out, not returning. What kept me was the excellent acting as ever from Cotillard and Gainsbourg, but you honestly wonder why and how they signed up for such a messy screenplay.

If this film was a blind date, it would talk erratically at you for nearly two hours, then leave abruptly for no reason. Avoid.

What did I watch? What was it about? It's an incomprehensible, tiring mess, unbearably boring, especially towards the end. I wished I could see any meaning in this crap.

My vote: 1/10.

I suppose I'm lucky in the sense that unlike the other reviewers on here, I didn't pay to watch this film in a theater, but streamed it on Hulu. I approached it with high hopes since the title and brief synopsis seemed promising, but as the film went on I would get more and more disappointed. I thought the main character's film and his writing would just remain a side plot rather than eventually consume the whole thing. I was much more interested in learning about this long lost wife and his past relationship with her, but instead the movie just goes a million directions at once. We certainly learn about "les fantomes d'Ismaël" but are still left lost as to why they're there in the first place or why any of them matter more than the plot about the wife ?! Honestly this is a film that even pretentious hipsters won't have the right to say that they understood, because the film is a hot mess. Yes it may have some solid French talent in the cast, but their gifts went to waste due to a tangled storyline that never exactly gets detangled. I'm a fan of French films, but this one is just not good, sorry to say.

How is it possible to produce such an empty film. It is devoid of any social, societal, political or economic reality. The acting is pachydermic (Charlotte Gainsbourg has the charisma of a folding chair, László Szabó can't act - it's about time -, Marion Cotillard looks like a meme of herself). The characters are all unsympathetic. That is to say, unpleasant and painful. No empathy is possible. Impressive. An edifying film to show in film schools. It has no hysteresis. It is very strong to use such big strings, neurasthenic voice-over, mawkish music, bloated and pontificating plot.

It is impossible to believe for a fraction of a second in these two female characters who are fighting for the character of Mathieu Amalric who does tons to give the impression that he is an artist (only the impression). Who could at least commit suicide, which would end the diegesis (to be studied for the remake). To be saved, a nude shot of Marion Cotillard. And for what?