This is a very peculiar movie which, despite the pretentious musings of others about its hidden meanings and artistic brilliance, adds up to not very much worth watching, in my humble opinion. Yes, there are some pretty scenes in the Alps and in the South Pacific but there is very little acting going on and no writing at all. OK, so the director simply wanted to shoot some expensive film in her very expensive camera with all the rest of her expensive equipment in tow, replete with hefty travel budget, extensive staff, and etc. On a literal shoestring, I do something similar with my Krasnogorsk 3, or should I say, did with my K3 before the current economic conditions put my budding film-making efforts on extended hold. But when I go around shooting interesting footage and allow "the story" (or more accurately the edited montage) to take its own course and unfold of its own accord, which is nothing more romantic or thoughtful than just the way I shoot film, I note that nobody is falling all over themselves to exhibit my work, calling it brilliant, artistic, and ever so poignant and meaningful. Perhaps I need to shoot an entire 100-foot roll on just one landscape. This director, in contrast, can't even explain her own efforts. In the interview portion of the DVD, her inarticulate, meandering explanation of the point, coupled with "meaningful gestures" that don't quite bridge the gap, indicate that she's as clueless about the meaning of this flick as a typical viewer might be and I'm not sure she'd disagree.
And as for Colin Gregoire, am I sick of seeing that odd-looking fellow standing there playing the role as if he's got something interesting going on between his ears. He doesn't. In "The Dreamlife of Angels," he played a convincing heel and so far I see no reason to alter my assessment of his apparently shallow character. I'd much rather see more of his French and Belgian costars in that exceptional movie than more of him but apparently he has better connections than they do in the French movie biz. As for the protagonist in this non-flick, he does little for me until he goes to Tahiti, and I must say, that's a neat hut on the beach he built for himself. I remembered him from his role in "Topaz," where he played a sketch artist who did some moonlighting by interviewing a member of the Castro regime as a favor for his CIA employed father-in-law (John Forsythe) just before it hit the fan in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was much older and heavier in this film, of course, but still recognizable.
And as for Colin Gregoire, am I sick of seeing that odd-looking fellow standing there playing the role as if he's got something interesting going on between his ears. He doesn't. In "The Dreamlife of Angels," he played a convincing heel and so far I see no reason to alter my assessment of his apparently shallow character. I'd much rather see more of his French and Belgian costars in that exceptional movie than more of him but apparently he has better connections than they do in the French movie biz. As for the protagonist in this non-flick, he does little for me until he goes to Tahiti, and I must say, that's a neat hut on the beach he built for himself. I remembered him from his role in "Topaz," where he played a sketch artist who did some moonlighting by interviewing a member of the Castro regime as a favor for his CIA employed father-in-law (John Forsythe) just before it hit the fan in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was much older and heavier in this film, of course, but still recognizable.