Rating: 
Summary: Characters in search of an author
Review: "Festival at Cannes" is worth watching once, not for its plot but for its fine collection of actors. Everyone seems to be having fun portraying a variety of movie industry hacks, producers, and tired-out stars. These several people wander about in the beautiful south of France town, having various intrigues and minor romances. The film has a feminist edge, as many of the women in the film come out strong in comparison with some of the lost, power-mad men. It should be noted that I never actually cared much for any of the characters; the film's major flaw is that it assumes that just because we have a bunch of interesting characters wandering around, we will end up liking one or more of them. The romance between a high powered producer and an aspiring indie director woman seems particularly unlikely, though the relationship between an older director and ex-star actress is touching and interesting. The film doesn't have much of an ending, it just kind of peters out; however, for the setting and talky dialogue, it's worth a look.
Rating:
Summary: Characters in search of an author
Review: "Festival at Cannes" is worth watching once, not for its plot but for its fine collection of actors. Everyone seems to be having fun portraying a variety of movie industry hacks, producers, and tired-out stars. These several people wander about in the beautiful south of France town, having various intrigues and minor romances. The film has a feminist edge, as many of the women in the film come out strong in comparison with some of the lost, power-mad men. It should be noted that I never actually cared much for any of the characters; the film's major flaw is that it assumes that just because we have a bunch of interesting characters wandering around, we will end up liking one or more of them. The romance between a high powered producer and an aspiring indie director woman seems particularly unlikely, though the relationship between an older director and ex-star actress is touching and interesting. The film doesn't have much of an ending, it just kind of peters out; however, for the setting and talky dialogue, it's worth a look.
Rating: 
Summary: They [...]directors, don't they?
Review: A stunning cast and a brilliant setting -- marred only by incoherent plotting, sloppy editing, and cinematography so kludgy the DP should be taken out and [...]. On second thought, take Jaglom out first. Ok ok, that's a bit drastic. But you can't help thinking that he just took this great cast, told them to improvise along some vague lines, and then tried to mush it all together in the editing room. The result, not surprisingly, is -- mush. There's half a dozen plot lines here that should all pull together and catch fire, but instead they just spin off idly to nowhere. Or if they're lucky, into cliche-ville. And technically, yeesh -- the sound is appalling, the lighting amateurish, the camerawork clumsy and fumbling. They'll be trotting this one out in film schools as an example of how not to make a film. (One bright note -- William Shatner's cameo is a hoot!)
Rating:
Summary: NOT THE BEST
Review: Here is a perfect example of a film that had everything going for it but it did not make it. It got lost in Cannes. The best known actors took a part in this film. Everyone was well known and rightly so. Location was perfect. The screen play could make the screen play of the year. The idea was a really good one. So, what happened? Why such great actors didn't know what to do and how to handle the part, and the film was not filmed right and the complecity of the screen play was lost right on the beginning? Where did the passion go? Was it a director? Or everyone thought that they were so great already that nothing else was needed? I don't really know what happened there but in my book this film made only two stars but out of respect for the best I gave it three stars.
Rating:
Summary: NOT THE BEST
Review: Here is a perfect example of a film that had everything going for it but it did not make it. It got lost in Cannes. The best known actors took a part in this film. Everyone was well known and rightly so. Location was perfect. The screen play could make the screen play of the year. The idea was a really good one. So, what happened? Why such great actors didn't know what to do and how to handle the part, and the film was not filmed right and the complecity of the screen play was lost right on the beginning? Where did the passion go? Was it a director? Or everyone thought that they were so great already that nothing else was needed? I don't really know what happened there but in my book this film made only two stars but out of respect for the best I gave it three stars.
Rating: 
Summary: If you're a fan of improvisation, this is among the best
Review: I'm a Henry Jaglom fan and you probably have to appreciate a quality of his films, or at least be aware of it, to understand this movie. For the most part, the dialogue is improvised. With that said, I'm not surprised that a lot of the reviewers here didn't realize this. You might not get the witty lines of a Woody Allen film (as one reviewer criticized), but it's still interesting--and this is key. Jaglom is primarily concerned with interesting dialogue and situations, not one-liners. The fact that the movie stars Hollywood insiders grants the film with a legitimate knowledge over the subject matter. I found this film both funny at times (a scene between Silver and Norman is classic), and touching at times (primarily the scenes between Silver and Scacchi). I don't like all of Jaglom films because not all of them work, but I found this one quite satisfying. Even if the resolution of the plot isn't completely given, it is, at least, implied.
Rating: 
Summary: Undefinable
Review: If you look for "Festival in Cannes" at your local video store, chances are that you will find, as I did, that it is catalogued under Comedy, when, in fact, it is not. Nor is it a drama. "Festival in Cannes" cannot really be put into one genre or another, because it really doesn't fit into any one place. Though it shows a very interesting protrayal of Hollywood and the process of getting a movie put together, it can at times drag a little. I began the film wondering when it would end, and ended it hoping for a little more. The plot is rather jumpy, and doesn't really let us get too close to any of the characters. It mainly focuses on Alice Palmer (Greta Scacchi), an actress who has decided to write and direct a film for the first time. At the Cannes film festival, she meets a sleazy, virtually unknown producer(Zack Norman) who wants to make her dream a reality. The catch: Alice wants the French actress Millie Marquand(Anouk Aimee) to star. However, the producer of another film (Ron Silver), would also like Millie in his film in a cameo appearance. There is also a sidestory in which a young woman(Jenny Gabrielle) is making her first appearance in a film that has become an unexpected hit at Cannes, and is quickly turning her into something she has no wish to become: A star. Gabrielle's character Blue seemed to have an interesting background, and I felt that her character should have been either more developed, or removed from the film entirely, as it really only seemed to be a confusing diversion from the actual plot of the film. The end doesn't really give you a resolution to any of the conflicts at hand, and left me disappointed. I felt as though I'd been brought to the top of a hill, and then discovered that it just drops off at the end. But "Festival" does provide an interesting little visit into the world of Hollywood and filmmaking. All the characters, though some were rather ill-developed, seemed like they really could be real people, and I wondered whether writer-director Henry Jaglom had actually based some of the characters on people in the business. If you're a real movie buff, I'd say give "Festival" a look. But it's really not a movie for everyone, and I'd say it's probably not worth owning, or even watching more than just once.
Rating:
Summary: Undefinable
Review: If you look for "Festival in Cannes" at your local video store, chances are that you will find, as I did, that it is catalogued under Comedy, when, in fact, it is not. Nor is it a drama. "Festival in Cannes" cannot really be put into one genre or another, because it really doesn't fit into any one place. Though it shows a very interesting protrayal of Hollywood and the process of getting a movie put together, it can at times drag a little. I began the film wondering when it would end, and ended it hoping for a little more. The plot is rather jumpy, and doesn't really let us get too close to any of the characters. It mainly focuses on Alice Palmer (Greta Scacchi), an actress who has decided to write and direct a film for the first time. At the Cannes film festival, she meets a sleazy, virtually unknown producer(Zack Norman) who wants to make her dream a reality. The catch: Alice wants the French actress Millie Marquand(Anouk Aimee) to star. However, the producer of another film (Ron Silver), would also like Millie in his film in a cameo appearance. There is also a sidestory in which a young woman(Jenny Gabrielle) is making her first appearance in a film that has become an unexpected hit at Cannes, and is quickly turning her into something she has no wish to become: A star. Gabrielle's character Blue seemed to have an interesting background, and I felt that her character should have been either more developed, or removed from the film entirely, as it really only seemed to be a confusing diversion from the actual plot of the film. The end doesn't really give you a resolution to any of the conflicts at hand, and left me disappointed. I felt as though I'd been brought to the top of a hill, and then discovered that it just drops off at the end. But "Festival" does provide an interesting little visit into the world of Hollywood and filmmaking. All the characters, though some were rather ill-developed, seemed like they really could be real people, and I wondered whether writer-director Henry Jaglom had actually based some of the characters on people in the business. If you're a real movie buff, I'd say give "Festival" a look. But it's really not a movie for everyone, and I'd say it's probably not worth owning, or even watching more than just once.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Satire at Its Best! Better every time you see it!
Review: Just around the time following the Academy Awards last year, while advertisements for Lord of the Rings and A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park and The Royal Tennenbaums were taking up huge amounts of space with there showy ads, I was inevitably drawn to this one: a beautiful woman in a glamourous dress, clutching a cell phone as she overlooks the French Rivera. Further inticing me was the name Maxamillian Schell in the credits...a great classic actor who won an Academy Award for Best Actor for the film Judgement at Nuremburg, one of my favorite films. I made it a point to catch this film in the theater. Unfortunately, no nearby cinema ever showed it and I had all but forgotten it when I walked into a Suncoast store to pick up a gift for someone. Again, my eyes were drawn to the glamourous woman on the Riviera. Recalling what I remembered, I grabbed the DVD, got another one for the gift, and payed for them. As soon as I got home, I put on the DVD. Expecting a great, bitting, acerbic film about Hollywood, I was initially dissapointed. Festival in Cannes constantly made me smile and the stars (especially Schell) were luminous in their roles, but I felt that the film lacked the magic I had hoped for. Enjoyable, yes, but nothing great, and absolutely no special features whatsoever (which is still annoying). About a week later, I put the DVD on again. Knowing the story, and what would happen, I just began to watch this little gem. The performances began to seem so realistic, the most natural I have ever scene. The characters are almost always in conversations among two people, allowing candid acting to shine. The overlapping dialog and multiple conversations in some scens are reminiscent of His Girl Friday. The acerbic lines began to spring out, ones I had missed originally, and the breathtaking cinematography captivated me. Seeing these great stars with real actors at the festival was a magical experience...Faye Dunaway and William Shatner play themselves in red carpet scenes and the great director Peter Bogdonovich portrays a famous director named Milo. As the aging French screen diva Anouk Aim¡¦ is fabulous, and deservent of the Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, Maximillian Schell would also make a great nominee for Actor. However, its the supporting cast that steal all the scenes. As Blue, the up and coming starlet, Jenny Gabrielle is fabulous, and as the fast talking film finacier Kaz Naiman, Zack Norman is fantastic...he deserves a Supporting Actor Oscar. Greta Scacchi also does a great job, the supporting actress choice of the year! This film captured the essence of the Cannes Film Festival, the behind the scenes suffering that goes on to put on a show for the world! Anyone who was dissapointed as I was the first time, I urge you to watch it again and become sucked into the essence of Hollywood, the reasons behind decisions, and the people behind the scenes!
Rating: 
Summary: Must be film lover
Review: One really has to love film to respect Jaglom's attempt at satire. Finally, Jaglom entertains without being preachy. I am very surprised at some of the negative reviews because in many ways this film is funnier, wittier and more inside than "The Player". Greta Sacchi is perfect as the actress turned writer turned hopeful director. Ron Silver couldn't be slimier or more sympathetic in the final reel. The end of the movie reminds me of "The Way We Were" but with more realism. Anouk Aimee is used properly as the star she is, and every supporting actor contributes the right feel for a bunch of hustlers on the Rivera. This is not a movie to wait for the punchline or for the action...it is a mood piece on the big machine that Hollywood became in the 1980's and in many ways is still today. The 80's were the machine at its worst, but slowly things are beginning to change. Even the blockbusters of today tend to have a little more substance than they used to.....with apologies to Tom Hanks.
|
