depont03

We've been watching this show from the start, the idea of a live competition of artists some professional, some amature is great. Showing the process as time lapse, choice of medium, different attitudes towards art. Two things however stand out: the choice of the sitters - almost always they have to be some recognizable screen figures, celebs, actors, TV presenters, almost never people with interesting professions and interesting personalities - those who would be of interest for real artists to draw. Where are real scientists (not popularizes of science), doctors, teachers, construction workers, street people. The second point: more than half of the chosen artist are just slavishly copying from iPads and photos. It might be Ok to allow to use a photo crop for the reference of yes, nose mouth (to avoid coming too close to the model and also to battle model's fatigue after several hours of sitting) - but taking a photo and copying it exactly (in one show even with some artificial computer effects) should be disallowed.

The judges are criticized a lot in the comments, I think they are OKish, sometimes they do make strange choices - probably taking into account the self-portrait more than the actual performance during the show. They often cancel some artists as too academic, this is of course a disaster, because mastery should not be punished and someone who can not get a likeness without a photo is not a portrait artist.

This cartoon has nice atmosphere, well drawn animation. It evokes many reminiscences of similar children book stories (every bit you have seen somewhere else), which feels somewhat compilative, synthetic after watching. It is suitable for families with kids and teens. The story is linear and predictable, it takes place in the village on the sea-side in Europe. In the old house full of old books and the characters from these books as well as preservation of the books themselves play important part in the development of the story. The drawings are by award-winning artist so I had higher expectations before watching, but I don't regret watching it either.

Watching this film you might wonder "What on Earth this has to do with Michelangelo, except for the decorations?"

While it is a good idea to try a character and period study, rather than a glamorous Hollywood-style biopic, this film is a blank shot at it. On the one hand the cast is interesting, the non-professional actors play well (though such cast would fit better Boccaccio's "Decameron"). The film overall slightly reminds films by Fellini or Milos Forman's "Amadeus" - where there are many grotesque moments, the main character could be almost a caricature but Forman unlike Konchalovsky manages very well the contrast between comical and tragic. In the "Sin" the grotesque is purposeless, because the script is very weak, the storytelling is not engaging and the main character never steps out from the void of half-craziness. In Forman's film Mozart could look dumb, but as soon as music started he turned into a genius. Konchalovsky's Michelangelo only counts coins, argues contracts and purchases marble. He never touches a chisel or brush, he is never shown as a thinker or a poet. There is no moment to sympathize with him or understand why such person could create great art. It is an empty caricature rather than a human.

To sum up, this film is an unfortunately waste of promising actors and excellent Tuscan scenery. Some snapshots are well done because the cast and the decorations are good. But overall you will not gain much by watching this half-baked production, unless you are interested in evolution of Konchalovsky as a director.