Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

secondtake Modigliani (2004)Wow, somebody besides Modigliani was smoking hashish when making this thing. It's incoherent, it takes fictional liberties that border on infantile (never mind trying to create an interesting story), and the acting and writing (basics, yes?) are strained and patched together. Stephen Holden is right, this is a movie about how not to make a movie about a famous artist.Andy Garcia? I can see how people find him handsome, and Modigliani was a lady's man, for sure, so that much works. But he isn't an actor with either subtlety or fire, mostly just self-consciousness. His girlfriend, Jeanne, who was supposed to be 19 when the artist met her, is played with surprising unevenness by the usually talented Elsa Zylberstein, who was almost twice that age, 36. (She does have a naturally long face, which fits the elongated look of the artist's many portraits.) And then there is an even worse fit, the man playing the short fiery Spaniard named Picasso, an Iranian-British comedian name Omid Djalili. He neither looks nor acts like Picasso, who was filmed and photographed so much we know quite exactly what he was like.So what is it about this film that makes sense? Nothing. There is snow in one direction and not in the the other. There is the foolish brandishing of guns, glasses smashed to the floor, hallucinations that play cheap cinematic games, an invented rivalry between Picasso and Modigliani as if they were the only two artists of note in town (this is Paris, 1917, remember). Oh, and speaking of that, where's the war? You know, World War I. Ha.So, Modigliani impregnates this young Catholic student, Jeanne, and shows raging compassion and neglect in almost the same scene. He loves poverty and seems to never really paint--except when he gives up halfway through and destroys the thing in a fit. (This is only partly true--he drew and painted like mad, but not destructively.) The light is often nice, his T.B. is neatly invisible until the dramatic final bow, and Paris never looked so tawdry and small. It's a shame, because it could at least have been brimming with atmosphere. Or, taking it another direction, the movie could have leapt into complete fantasy like Derek Jarman's "Caravaggio" or the inventive (and more accurate) "Goya in Bordeaux."I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. Anyone, not with all the better artist films out there. As a final note, even if you like everything I didn't, you'll have to keep track of the many side characters (artists who come and go like Max Jacobs, Diego Rivera, and Utrillo), and the put up with a pastiched together simultaneous scene of several of these painters all making their works for the competition, feverishly painting as club music plays in the soundtrack as if it were a high school football tournament. Good luck. The death mask at the end? That's for real. And the final tragic suicide, as well. The truth of Modigliani is far more intense than this frivolous thing.

RickyFlambo No. No. Nooooo. Nooooooooooo. Typical Hollywood dirge. Disgusting. Crap. Unwathchable. Another Godfather. Nothing of redeeming value. Nothing. Not one thing. None. Don't watch this. If you want to watch a film about an artist, watch Lust for Life. Or, watch paint dry. It will be better for you and more entertaining. At least you won't have anger issues or nightmares. And, you'll see real paint. God help us! God save us from Hollywood style movies. I mean propaganda. I mean lectures. I mean violent, juvenile, pop-philosophy manipulations. I mean artificial, staged, formulaic, insipid, exaggerated, preposterous, and most importantly, phony garbage. No!

vldazzle Just so you know - I love films which are good (even fairly good) biographies of artists. There are too few done. That said, recent Hollywood films want to keep to safe formulas in all their films, so one cannot expect "excellence". I really enjoyed this film, however, even though after watching it I had to review a biography of Modigliani, because I did not know much about his life. I knew about the artist's community and understood much of their interaction with other artists and authors in all those "decadent" years of the 20s. I understand that Frida was not yet in the group (but someone wanted her in the film ?!) and I still would like to know what real person was represented in little Dedo- a sweet little boy, but was he another illegitimate child from earlier times?? I see nothing in actual biography. All in all I think it IS a "KEEPER".

pyramidalapex Superbly acted, photographed, and recreation of the times, both visually and culturally. Left me wondering where the art used in the film came from. The actress who played Modigliani's girlfriend was portrayed so well in the art that it makes me think someone created the art just for the film. But when paintings are created for films you can always tell! And here it's art of famous painters whose work and style is very well known. The paintings used in this film appeared absolutely genuine!Ever wondered where artist's inspiration comes from? This film reveals where these important painters thought theirs was coming from--an on-the-edge lifestyle that didn't last long for reasons made clear in the film. For the record, I disagree with Messrs. Modigliani and Picasso . . .Fascinating! Great job Andy! Great film!