Change Your Image
midwestguy-04174
Reviews
La sirène du Mississipi (1969)
A very over-rated film
*** This review may contain spoilers *** I bought this movie two years ago and finally finished it today. It took three separate attempts for me to make it through this dark, boring, masochistic tale. That says a lot.
The only reason I finished it is because I wanted to get "closure". Kind of like going to a funeral. That says a lot, too.
As another reviewer said, there is NO WAY that any man could be as utterly STUPID and NAÏVE as the main character. Especially a man who is a fourth generation plantation owner and runs a big factory. Here is a man who has been a leader all his life, led everyone from domestic servants to farm and factory workers. A man in his position would have encountered hundreds of manipulators and con artists in his life, as well as dozens of gold diggers. Yet he falls for this woman? Ha! The most eligible bachelor on the colony and yet he has to resort to a personal ad? Ha! This man would have had local girls in droves.
Truffaut, like Goddard, started out great, but was making mostly garbage by the late 1960s. They ran out of ideas, and once the novelty of the Nouvelle Vague wore off, the magic was gone. They ended up being captured, propped up and supported by the Hollywood/French film industry that they had first rebelled against and criticized.
After viewing most of Truffaut's catalogue, I just don't think he was as good as everyone has been led to believe. Either was Goddard, for that matter. Melville was a much better film maker on every level, yet never got a tenth of the recognition. I believe that when it all comes down to it, most of Truffaut's movies are a pain to watch. They are way too long. They go along slowly: boring, brooding, and hopeless. Filled with characters that go from one self-imposed hell to another. This movie is a perfect example.
I don't have to mention all the impossible parts of the story line: The French government and the Catholic Church are sticklers for documents. How did they get married without anyone noticing anything funny about her passport? How did a bank in a small town – on an island - just happen to have 28 million French francs cash in the vault that day? (About $5.5 million at the time). You think that any bank manager would release that kind of money to ANYONE without an appointment and the presence of multiple witnesses and signed affidavits? You don't think he would make damn sure that one of the richest men on the island from one of the oldest families was notified before his accounts were drained? What I.D. did she use to get the money out of the bank? I mean, I could believe it if she got away with maybe a million. But basically all the money? Come on. The list goes on. These are really key aspects of the plot that make the story so unbelievable. Not to mention the ridiculous love angle.
I believe that Belmondo and Deneuve did the movie just for the money. They were both past their peaks, especially Belmondo. Their presence in the movie, and the fact that Truffaut directed it, is the only reason anyone would ever want to watch this movie, or remember it. I didn't find anything inspiring about their performances.
Many critics through the years have charged Nouvelle Vague directors with having outright contempt for their audience. In addition describing their movies as being direct attacks on the viewers' supposed naiveté. This movie really fits the bill on both charges. Movies like this remind me of how we Americans used to talk about foreign movies back in the 1970s. People would say how crazy, weird and pointless these foreign movies were, and RIGHTLY so. "Mississippi Mermaid" is a perfect example.
The worst thing about the whole mess is all the artsy-fartsy wannabees who give this movie great reviews and talk about how "wonderful" and "inspiring" it is; how "great" the lead actors' performances were. Are you kidding me?
Bloodline (1979)
Audrey Hepburn's Mistake
I've always had a special place in my heart for Audrey Hepburn and I admire her work. However, I just can't understand why she made this movie.
I've watched this movie three times and on each occasion I found it almost impossible to watch. It's just so disjointed, redundant, and ridiculous. The last time I watched it I tried very hard to give it one more chance but to no avail.
One would think that all the big name actors would give it a boost. However, this cast turns the movie into one big "Who's Who" of WASHED-UP actors: Omar Sharif, Romy Schneider, Maurice Ronet, Irene Papas, AND unfortunately Hepburn herself.
I hate to say that. Yes, she is a legend. Yes, she is an icon. Yes, she is loved. It's sad, but she was washed-up as an actress by 1967. Every movie she made after "How to Steal a Million" in 1966 is nearly impossible to watch, especially "Two for the Road" and this flop. That includes the critically acclaimed "Wait Until Dark" in my opinion. Even "Robin and Marion" just doesn't come together.
"Two for the Road" has got to be the most over-rated movie ever. Torture! Pure torture! The only thing good about it is the music by Henry Mancini.
I don't know if it was the material, her co-workers, the changing times, or what. It is sad, but somewhere along the line Audrey lost the magic. Bloodline was the final nail in the coffin.
We love you, Audrey, but someone must have lied to you.