'Gainsbourg' review: Fun, imaginative, but insubstantial...

Most comic book adaptations are pretty far removed from their source material. There are a few notable exceptions to this. Frank Miller was credited as a co-director, along with Robert Rodriquez, for the almost shot-for-shot 2005 adaptation of his comic book 'Sin City'. Similarly, Daniel Clowes worked closely with director Terry Zwigoff in 2001, co-writing the adaptation of his own 'Ghost World'. But otherwise comic book movies (as diverse as 'X-Men', 'The Road to Perdition' and 'V for Vendetta') are a separate animal, sometimes even disowned by the comics original creator (see any Alan Moore adaptation). Usually, the rights to make the comic are purchased by a studio and somebody unconnected to the material is hired to make a movie. Sometimes, as with most superhero movies, only the characters - and possibly their origins - are retained, the plot lines often differing wildly from anything in the comics' own continuity.



But in France, the home of auteur theory, a couple of quirky, creator-led adaptations have come to cinemas in recent years. In 2007 Marjane Satrapi co-wrote and directed the quite brilliant animated version of her graphic novel 'Persepolis'. And now Joann Sfar has written and directed a biopic of the legendary French singer-songwriter, Serge Gainsbourg, based on his own comic book. And, just like Satrapi's film, 'Gainsbourg' is highly stylised, playful and experimental whilst never straying too far away from reality. So when Guillermo del Toro regular Doug Jones turns up in a bizarre costume representing both Gainsbourg's self-image and on-stage persona, it doesn't seem out of place. Nor does it seem in opposition to the performances from many of the quirky and eccentric supporting players such as Yolande Moreau (who has a small role as the singer and actress Fréhel).

For fans of post-war French popular music, I am sure 'Gainsbourg' is a must-see film, featuring lots of musical performances and with actors playing various singers the 50s up to the 80s including France Gall, Boris Vian, Juliette Gréco, Les Frères Jacques and, of course, Jane Birkin and Brigitte Bardot. However, as I personally know very little about Serge Gainsbourg or the wider French music scene, 'Gainsbourg' proved a fairly frustrating film. It is episodic, taking us from Serge's childhood up to near the end of his life, hardly stopping for breath along the way. Everything is painted in broad brushstrokes, scenes are brief sketches and icons are played as icons rather than real people. It is a film about myths which simply serves to repeat them. There is certainly fun to be had here, but there is no insight to be gained. Those in the know might appreciate the lightness of touch on show here, but I for one needed more of a context for each (seemingly unconnected) event.



"How popular is he at this point?" and "How did he go from writing songs for cabaret acts to sleeping with Brigitte Bardot?" were among the questions I was asking which went unanswered. When a record producer tells Gainsbourg and Birkin (played ably by the British Lucy Gordon who tragically committed suicide soon after the production finished shooting) that their new single "Je t'aime... moi non plus" will spark mass controversy, we are never shown the results. Refreshing brevity for those in the know, perhaps, but I needed a bit more information. It is a film made for fans - and that's fine - but don't expect to find out anything you couldn't glean from the man's wikipedia entry.

The film does make a connection between the central figure's adoption of his stage persona and his growing up Jewish in Nazi occupied France, suggesting that a degree of self-loathing manifested itself as bombast sophistication and self-conscious elegance. This is conveyed via Doug Jones' absurdist caricature costume representations of Gainsbourg, which interact with the real, more introverted version of the man (played an uncanny doppelganger in Eric Elmosnino) as well as with the other characters in each scene, crossing a line between fantasy and reality. The childhood scenes, in which young then Lucien Ginsburg (Kacey Mottet Klein) is followed around by a huge, Nazi propaganda-inspired caricature Jewish head, are a real highlight.



But in the end it is very much the breezy and whimsical comic book movie version of this icon's life. Not without some arresting visuals, imaginative touches and stirring renditions of classic pieces of kitsch pop (the enthusiastic, up tempo recital of 'Baby Pop' is a highlight). Sfar's film is willfully enigmatic, like the man himself - and I am sure that was the intention - but ultimately it made me hungry for a more in-depth look at Serge Gainsbourg's life and career. Maybe this renewed interest is the film's real achievement.

'Gainsbourg' is still playing in the UK and is rated '15' by the BBFC. It is doing fairly well in the UK too, and is still hanging on in the top ten.

Expendables-gate...

About fourteen hours ago my scathing one-star review of Sylvester Stallone's 'The Expendables' was posted at Obsessed with Film. Within hours I was labelled "a joke", a "professional cancer" and "a nobody writer who will stay a nobody writer". My personal favourite? I was also called the "all-time reigning jackass writer" - a quote I will cherish forever, once the crying stops.

The reason for this? Well, in the review I made the regrettable and admittedly foolish statement that not only was the film pretty dumb, but that it would only appeal to extremely dumb people ("hardened dunces" and the illiterate, to name two offended groups). Intended as a frivolous and jokey closing remark, the comment actually ended up inspiring a wave of hate directed at this reviewer and the site at large. Some of it just and reasonable ("isn’t insulting ‘some’ of your reader base considered bad practice?"). I unreservedly apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended by that remark. Believe it or not, that was not my intention and I didn't expect people to take it a) personally ("I for one plan on seeing this film, not because I’m a illiterate meat head like you imply") or b) literally ("Stallone has written Oscar winning films and you’re implying viewers can’t read if they enjoy the film?"). I stand by all of the comments I made about the film itself and feel my review is valid, but insulting an imagined audience (something I thought would be taken in jest) was unfair and perhaps even uncalled for.

Let me get one thing straight: I obviously do not genuinely believe that only the illiterate would wish to see this film. (As every bigot says) some of my best friends have been looking forward to this movie for a long time. I don't believe they are in any way dumb for doing so. I do understand that a lot of the people who want to see this film are simply being nostalgic. Indeed, I felt that I had acknowledged the film's appeal to people other than myself when I wrote that:

I must confess that I am not a particularly big fan of the 80’s action movie and I am fairly sure that everything I hated about this movie is the reason why so many others will love it. There are moments of bone-crunching violence, well choreographed scenes of martial arts, huge explosions and loads of silly one-liners.

What I was really attacking in my review (I hoped, with humour) was the fact that this movie's raw, ideal audience member is a gung-ho moron. Let me explain. Imagine you have never seen 'Commando' or 'Predator' or 'Rocky IV' for a second: would you be leaping to the defence of this movie so passionately? I suspect not. I recognise that a lot of people simply want to see Rocky Balboa alongside Ivan Drago again and long to watch the "Governator" back on the big screen, and this is fair enough. On that score, I am with you. I may not be a huge fan of the 80's action movie, but I am a fan of movies in general and can appreciate a little intertextuality as much as the next man. But if you allow yourself to get sucked into this stunt casting gimmick of a movie, then you encouraging the making of bad movies by giving your money to something of zero substance.

I don't mean "substance" in a poncy, intellectual way either. 'Die Hard' has substance - it was an original and remains a peak example of its genre. 'The Expendables' regurgitates worn out ideas, using worn out icons and serves most as a celebration of human ugliness and Regan-era politics. In-jokes aside, it has nothing to offer.

Another reason for my comment, as pointed out in my editor's generous defence of my review, is that I was trying to redress the balance after female viewers of 'Sex & the City 2' were dismissed as dumb following that film's huge success earlier in the year. To my mind 'The Expendables' is the male equivalent of this and we shouldn't let ourselves off just because we fetishise violence rather than shoes. Arguably the shoe thing is healthier anyway.

I have also been accused of being "biased" and of not being "balanced". I strongly refute this. I go into any movie with an open mind, even if I have a judgement based on the trailer or the poster or the history of the director, I try to watch the movie as if those thoughts didn't exist and judge it on its own merits. This is what I feel I have done in this case. I wouldn't have slagged the film off if it had made me laugh or excited me. I don't have an agenda. And in relation to the question of "balance", this review is only supposed to reflect my opinion. I will not write something which says "on one hand this and on the other hand that" because that would be boring to read. Whatever you thought of my review, I don't get the impression it was a boring read.

A final point: anyone who read my reviews of films like 'South of the Border', 'Capitalism: A Love Story' and even 'Kick-Ass' will know I am an outspoken leftist and often bring that into my analysis of film, whether looking at politics of gender or race or economics. Therefore, a film as vehemently right-wing as 'The Expendables' is always going to grate on me, with it's blatant anti-Chavez message ("everything that comes out of the ground belongs to me" says an evil South American dictator). Perhaps that helps explain why I reacted so negatively towards it, perhaps not.

Anyway, even if you still hate that review or feel you dislike me as a reviewer, I hope you understand my position better now and accept my sincere apology if I upset you with the heavy-handed way I chose to express my opinion in this instance.

Thanks for reading.

'South of the Border' review: Chavez seems like a nice bloke...

Following on from his 2003 documentaries on Fidel Castro ('Comandante') and Yasser Arafat ('Persona Non Grata'), Oliver Stone journeyed into South America, meeting leaders from six countries, for his latest film 'South of the Border'. Focusing primarily on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, the documentary looks at the negative and biased portrayal of these leaders in the American media. In this film, through interviews and use of archive news footage, Stone seeks to counteract a number of the claims made by media outlets, presenting these leaders in a more positive light.

Perhaps this might not seem like a admirable cause to many, with Stone seemingly replacing one one-sided viewpoint with another, but when you are told (via Stone's narration) that much of the media within Venezuela is partisan and anti-Chavez - controlled by oil companies and special interests - then this documentary seems not only justified, but necessary.



Disappointingly, the "interviews" themselves (with Chavez as well as six other leaders including Raul Castro) are really little more than friendly chats between Stone and the subject. During these meetings he invites Bolivian leader Evo Morales to play soccer with him and asks the Argentine President Cristina Kirchner how many pairs of shoes she owns, whilst he encourages Chavez to ride around on a small bicycle. These moments are intended to humanise people so often demonised, but they just made me feel as though Stone were wasting these people's time. I don't mean to say I wanted to see Stone take an adversarial tone at odds with the point of his film, but just that I would have preferred to hear more of the political arguments (but maybe that's just me). I also worry that this approach limits the appeal of the film, perhaps making it preach to the converted. Somebody less sympathetic to the subjects than I might feel that this approach robs the film of credibility. Which is ashame, because there is good stuff here.

The strongest aspect of the film comes in the narration written by Tariq Ali and Mark Weisbrot, which is generally supported by really interesting news material, ranging from familiar bad source Fox News to The New York Times. These clips are faintly disturbing, demonstrating the factually inaccurate reporting and (in one clear case) manipulation of video editing prevalent in media reporting of Chavez in particular. There is also a lot of unsettling evidence that points to (surprise, surprise) CIA involvement in a number of fairly recent attempted coup d'état (as recently as 2002), as well as a lot of evidence which points to the role of the IMF as a body for controlling foreign economies in the interests of American capitalism.



The thing is that when Stone isn't asking his subjects to behave like buffoons, in the name of being media friendly, they actually all come across really well. All are eloquent and reasonable and all seem genuine and engaged with their people - particularly the poor. Chavez drives himself around and talks happily to citizens who approach his modest jeep. The scenes in which we see the leaders interact with each other are probably the best and it is these which represent the biggest coup for Stone. The Cuban veteran, Raul Castro, rebukes Stone for suggesting he is perhaps a loftier figure than the likes of Ecuador's relatively young Rafael Correa, saying that they are all equals and that all has their own ideas to bring to the table.

'South of the Border' is not a flawless piece of documentary film making. It is, however, a necessary opposing viewpoint to the one which we are usually offered - in regard to Chavez in particular. Probably my favourite aspect of the film is that, like the equally polemical work of Michael Moore, it contains a lot of information which could be depressing and yet manages to end on a note of optimism. In this case it is the hope that these South American leaders can bring the South American Continent together in a way which could see it forever independent from American political interference.

Furthermore, Tariq Ali goes as far as to suggest that this new left-leaning South American influence might eventually find its way into North America. To me that sounds like a fantasy. But it is one I was happy enough to indulge in. Perhaps the most heartening message was that given by Brazil's centre-left Lula da Silva who said that he has no interest in fighting with the United States but simply wishes to see his country treated as an equal. If nothing else, Stone's documentary is a good equaliser, launching a fierce counter-attack on the right-wing media. In my view, a laudable goal achieved with modest success.

'South of the Border' is out on limited release in the UK and is rated '15' by the BBFC. Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse is showing it on the weekend of the 7th and 8th of August.

'Mother' review: The best thriller film since Jackson's...

Later this month comes the UK release of 'Mother', a South Korean thriller directed by Joon-ho Bong, who made his name with the excellent 'The Host' and 'Memories of Murder'. The story of an unnamed women (Kim Hye-ja) whose only son, the mentally handicapped Do-joon (Won Bin), is accused of murder. The protective mother then takes it upon herself to prove her son's innocence by mounting her own criminal investigation. The film is suspenseful and tense, but also darkly funny throughout.

Joon-ho is supremely skilled at mixing genuine tension with humour in this way. Maybe Sam Raimi and the Coen Brothers strike the same delicate balance when working at the peak of their powers, with these filmmakers able to inject absurdist black comedy into horrific events without detracting from their impact. Like those American directors, Joon-ho is able to make his scenes of graphic violence extremely visceral without verging anywhere near the "torture porn" end of the spectrum. As Jon said on the last Splendor Podcast, there is also something of an obsession with bodily fluids in his work, with urine, saliva, blood, vomit and sweat, which contribute to this feeling of tangibility.



But for all the grimy detail, 'Mother' is certainly not an ugly film. In fact it is quite the opposite, with Hong Kyeong-pyo ('Brotherhood') lighting the film beautifully. It is also not a realist film, being highly stylised whilst retaining credibility at all times, even when a lawyer begins a bizarre karaoke as a way of talking to his client or when a couple of youngsters start a fight with a bunch of old businessmen on a golf course.

Kim Hye-ja is really outstanding as the titular mother, playing her with a touching fragility, but also bringing across her obsession and resilience superbly. The film is at its very best when exploring the disturbing, almost incestuous relationship between the mother and Do-joon, played by the model-turned-actor, Won Bin. He is pretty effective too, carefully avoiding pastiche in his portrayal of mental disability. Jin Goo is also really good as Jin-tae, a local ne'er-do-well and friend of Do-joon. He seems born to play a charismatic troublemaker.



It is difficult to say too much more about 'Mother' - at least in terms of plot developments - without spoiling the film. I will say only that its conclusion is surprising and highly satisfying. I recently compiled a list of the best films of 2010 so far. I hadn't seen 'Mother' at that point, but if I had have it would certainly place high up on that list. How high? I am not sure. I think that question warrants some perspective. But expect to hear about it again in my end-of-year review.

'Mother' is, without qualification, the best thriller film I have seen in several years. If 'The Host' and 'Memories of Murder' suggested Joon-ho Bong was one to watch, then 'Mother' confirms his status as a major talent.

'Mother' has been rated '15' by the BBFC and is released across the UK on the 20th of August. Come and see it at Brighton's Duke of York's! Jon and I talked about in the latest Splendor Podcast.

'A-Team' review: Big, loud, oh-so-silly fun...

I'll say right off: I've never seen an episode of the 'A-Team', the cult 1980's action series, so it not for me to say whether Joe Carnahan's new franchise re-boot movie is faithful to the spirit of the TV show. What I can say is that this new film, starring Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Sharlto Copley and Quinton Jackson as the titular group of vigilantes, was surprisingly enjoyable. In fact, whether I was laughing at the film or with it, I spent most of its running time with a silly grin on my face.

This is not to say that 'The A-Team' is an especially good movie. To start with, the politics of the thing are slightly dubious to say the very least, from the cartoon Mexicans at the beginning to the sleezy sexism of Cooper's character 'Face'. And the "moral" lesson learnt by B.A Baracus (Jackson) - that, as Walter Sobchak would say, "pacifism is nothing to hide behind" - is faintly disturbing. It is also true that Carnahan's direction is incoherent during the action scenes, with fast editing and a dizzying number of close-ups, and he treats the audience with very little respect offering a flashback every few minutes to help re-explain plot points and even who characters are. Oh, and the CGI is pretty ropey throughout (but especially at the end).



But despite these many flaws, 'The A-Team' is actually fairly good fun. The main reason for this is the central performers. Liam Neeson is great, chewing the scenery as Hannibal and lending the role gravitas, and 'District 9' star Sharlto Copley is excellent as Murdock, the ace pilot busted out of an insane asylum. Cooper is reliably charismatic. Quinton Jackson, a former UFC fighting champion, is the least absorbing of the four main actors, but at least he doesn't stray into an impression of Mr. T. Elsewhere in the cast, Patrick Wilson is entertaining as a duplicitous CIA operative and Brian Bloom does a decent job as a nasty mercenary solider. Jessica Biel is a forgettable, spare part as Cooper's love interest - but she is almost blameless: let's face it, 'The A-Team' isn't going to be packed with great female characters.

Another reason the film is watchable is that everything that happens is so darned over the top ("overkill is underrated"). When Hannibal explains one very, very silly plan to the team, one of his men responds "this is bat shit crazy!", to which the old man replies "it gets better!" These men relish the impossible. It is like that scene in 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' where Mr. Fox suggests a daring and convoluted route through a farm, oblivious that there is a completely clear path nearby which goes safely around all the obstacles. The difficulty (or impossibility) is the fun part and soon you are watching a tank fall out of an exploding aeroplane and hearing someone in a control room is exclaim "they're trying to fly the tank!" Ridiculous, but quite brilliant all the same, and certainly never less than entertaining.



In terms of raw "dumbness" there is really little to separate this movie - and everything that happens in it - from one directed by Michael Bay. However, there is less genuine bravado on show here. Whether it is intentional or just a happy accident, 'The A-Team' feels more like a parody of bravado. Everyone is clearly insane, nothing that takes place makes sense and everything explodes - especially when it logically shouldn't. It is a colourful and exaggerated cartoon version of reality. Nothing that takes place is milked for cool. In fact, cool is more or less absent here. And as someone who detests cool, I mean that in a really good way.

'The A-Team' isn't going to win any awards. It isn't going to get a five star review from The Guardian or be christened Film of the Month by Sight and Sound. And nor should it. There is much to dislike and criticise about it. But in a world where I have to sit through the "worthy" likes of 'Leaving' on a weekly basis, I am pleased and refreshed to be able to see something so self-consciously stupid. I'll watch a fun cheesy film over a dull film any day of the week.

Is 'The A-Team' a work of art? Probably not. But I'm not going to sit here stroking my chin denying that I smiled from beginning to end. If you've seen 'Inception' and 'Toy Story 3' (both far superior films) already and want to sample some light, blockbustery fun: then maybe you can call... 'The A-Team'. Cue music.

'The A-Team' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and is playing across the UK. You can hear Jon and I arguing about 'The A-Team' in our latest podcast.

'Toy Story 3' review: Pixar falling short of greatness...

Pixar have created a big problem for themselves. Their last two features, 'Wall-E' and 'Up', have been universally heralded as masterpieces and sit comfortably alongside the greatest animated films ever made. Of course, the studio was already well ahead of its American competitors before that - at least artistically. Films such as 'Ratatouille', 'The Incredibles', 'Finding Nemo' and the original 'Toy Story' are easily up there with the work of international masters, such as Miyazaki ('Spirited Away'), Ocelot ('Kirikou and the Sorceress') or Chomet ('Belleville Rende-vouz').

After a filmography that only really boasts one dud (the 2006 film 'Cars'), the California based animation studio have set the bar remarkably, even dauntingly, high and, with 'Cars 2' on the way and now operating under full Disney ownership, the honeymoon period could be set to end for the team that pioneered the now-dominant CGI animation art form. It is with this concern in mind that I went to see the latest entrant into the Pixar canon: 'Toy Story 3'. But does it live up to, or even surpass, the lightness of touch, the wit and the sophistication of last year's 'Up'?

In a word: no.



This is not to say that 'Toy Story 3' is not charming and funny. It is. There are plenty of endearing new characters (notably "Mr. Pricklepants" voiced by Timothy Dalton) and it is fun seeing Woody, Buzz and the gang again. But whereas the question at Pixar has always seemed to be "where can we go next?" - with them constantly pushing at boundaries (both technical and narrative) - this sequel feels as though it has been inspired by accountants and people eager to sell a few more Buzz Lightyear figures this Christmas.

Well, maybe that's a little harsh. There are some good new ideas in the film, which sees the toys being donated to a nursery. The animation of the toddlers is amazing, with the animators doing a terrific job of capturing their movements. In this respect, the film is as detailed and lovingly put together as anything they have produced. Michael Keaton is fun as Ken - the male counterpart to Barbie - as is Ned Beatty as "Lots-O'-Huggin' Bear". The gags are perhaps broader than usual, with lots of in-jokes (a Totoro toy is prominently featured), film references ('Cool Hand Luke' is explicitly quoted) and sight gags, but 'Toy Story 3' on the whole stays true to the Pixar tradition of dealing with genuinely adult themes, such as loss, death and even mid-life crisis. And it must be said that the opening sequence, which takes us into a childs imagination as he plays with the toys, is brilliant.



But whilst Jessie the cowgirl's story in 'Toy Story 2' was genuinely quite moving, helped in no small way by a splendid Randy Newman song ("When She Loved Me"), the tearjerker moments in this sequel feel forced and contrived. 'Up' reduced all except the most hard-hearted to floods of tears in its opening moments and justly received plaudits for doing so in such an elegant way, and it feels almost as though this feat has gone to Pixar's (collective) head. One wonders what great sorrow will befall Lightning McQueen next year. Maybe his tyres will deflate to the strains of a string quartet or his lady-car will take a tumble off a cliff and explode. Whatever they do it won't work: because I don't care about a talking car and, it turns out, care only a fraction more for Mr and Mrs Potato Head et al. The prolonged curtain call that ends the film feels similarly manipulative and calculated as the action which proceeds it.

Far be it from me to go on a Kermodeian rant about 3D, but I have to say that the novelty (and it is a novelty) is really starting to wear off now. I have enjoyed a few 3D titles over the last year and have been impressed by the way that the most recent films have used the technology to create depth rather then to make stuff pop out of the screen. But I am no longer impressed because I have now been there and seen it already. I saw 'Avatar' and now I'm over it. Now all I am noticing is the increased admission price (over £20 for my girlfriend and I) and the splitting headache upon leaving the cinema. The 3D is tastefully implemented in 'Toy Story 3', but you gain precisely nothing from seeing it this way.



If I sound unenthusiastic about 'Toy Story 3' it is only because of Pixar's own exceptionally high standards. Without doubt it is fun film and - along with 'Inception' - it is the must-see blockbuster movie of this summer. But am I wrong to expect a little bit more from Pixar? However much of a good time 'Toy Story 3' is, it doesn't hold a candle to any of their previous three films. Personally, I enjoyed Disney's return to hand-drawn animation, 'The Princess and the Frog', quite a bit more. And with sequels to 'Cars' and 'Monsters Inc.' in the pipeline, could Pixar's golden age be behind them? Or do they have another 'Up' in them? I hope for the latter, but on this evidence there is some cause for concern.

'Toy Story 3' is rated 'U' by BBFC and can be seen almost everywhere in 3D and 2D versions.

'Leaving' review: I Am Bored...

In recent times Kristen Scott Thomas has moved easily between big budget Hollywood movies such as 'The Golden Compass' and interesting little British films like 'Nowhere Boy'. There is nothing especially odd or exceptional about this. But what is rather more remarkable is that she has spent just as much time carving out a career in French language fare like 'Tell No One' and 'I've Loved You So Long'. We are used to seeing European actors move into English language film, but the reverse is rare. I can recall seeing Jodie Foster make a brief cameo appearance in Jeunet's 'A Very Long Engagement' a few years ago, but I am hard pressed to think of any other notable examples.

The latest in this vein of interesting Gallic offerings starring Scott Thomas comes in the form of Catherine Corsini's 'Leaving', the tale of a bored bourgeois housewife (Suzanne) who begins a love affair which both enables her to experience passion and live life again, as well as causing drama and friction within her family. It is in many ways very similar to the Italian-language film 'I Am Love' - which coincidentally also stars an English actress in Tilda Swinton. In 'Leaving' the object of Suzanne's sexual desire comes in the form of a builder who her wealthy husband has employed - distractingly played by the evil Captain Vidal from 'Pan's Labyrinth', the Spannish actor Sergi López.



This tale of sexual reawakening, forbidden love and of the impact of divorce upon a family, can be interesting. When handled properly it can be intense and deeply moving. However 'Leaving' is the single most dull movie I have sat through this year. All the characters (including the children) are unlikeable, the human emotions and events that are depicted are completely silly and handled with an unappealing level of earnestness. There is not really a moment of humour or levity. Instead we are treated to boring and faintly irritating movie which lurches from one uncomfortable sex scene to the next with only the blatant product placement for Peugeot holding any interest.

Suzanne travels between France and Spain frequently in her ultra-reliable French-made car, with a car ad aesthetic taking over whenever she glides across the picturesque countryside. I was not much of a fan of the aforementioned 'I Am Love', however after viewing 'Leaving' I can appreciate that movie's score, it's cinematography and it's set design - all of which are self-consciously "arty" yet provide a level of interest and entertainment missing here in this bland and conventional drama.



On a dramatic level the film has very little to offer. Kristen Scott Thomas' Suzanne could be seen to behave in a way which is interestingly morally grey and her husband's initial reaction to her infidelity is intriguing and sympathetic as it is one of extreme and inconsolable grief. However, seemingly unsure of how to navigate these characters through a story of emotional complexity and moral ambiguity, the film almost immediately finds safer, more surefooted ground. The husband (played by the Israeli-born actor, Yvan Attal) is soon turned into a two-dimensional villain and audience sympathies are reassuringly left to lie with the protagonist. With this lazy writing any hope that 'Leaving' might shed some light on the human condition quickly vanishes and we can set ourselves to autopilot until the film's contrived and completely overblown conclusion.

In the end Kristen Scott Thomas' grasp of French is impressive and I applaud her versatility, however 'Leaving' has little to recommend it. If you want to see an up-market version of this story, watch 'I Am Love'. If you want to see a really good film about temptation and desire for a married woman gone numb, then watch 'Brief Encounter'. This film has no real reason to exist.

'Leaving' is rated '15' by the BBFC and can still be seen in selected cinemas across the UK.