L'écume des jours

Usually, I do not care about how a book is adapted, as long as the movie is good on its own. In that case it was completely different; I am a huge, massive Boris Vian fan, and I never thought his style (for example the way he took metaphors literally) could be set upon a screen.

That is to say, until I've heard that Gondry was directing L'écume des Jours. Sometimes, those things just make sense; Gondry is the only one who could have transformed Boris Vian into something visual, and that is exactly what he did, and with no CGI, only old fashioned tricks. The DIY way ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is all about.

Maybe many will dislike this movie. Others, like me, will love it passionately, for its effusiveness, for its communicative joy, for its unrelenting sadness. But at least, people will feel what Boris Vian is all about. And I mean especially for the English speaking countries, where Boris Vian is really not well known and most of the time poorly translated: by transcribing his style to a visual dimension, Gondry made it universal.

30 minutes in the movie and the question was inevitable: "Still 90 minutes like this?" Unfortunately yes.Two hours with visuals in almost every frame: animated ringing bell, dancing long legs,soap-bubbles TV, Duke Ellington, stop motioned food, protons guns, Duke Ellington again and much much much more.

Don't take me wrong, i love surreal stuff, I like Gondry and his past works too, from music video clips ('starguitar' and 'around the world' are two of my favorite) to movies (human nature, science of sleep, eternal sunshine and the 'Tokyo!' fragment) but this time looks like he maybe pushed a way too much the visual part of the story.

I didn't read the book, but i've read around that the movie is pretty accurate to the script, the original story is very interesting to me but while watching the movie at some point you'll realize that you don't care anymore about what is happening in the story, because you'll get just distracted by all the visuals.

The acting was good, almost everything was good but to me this was an artsy-videoclip-120 minute long and after watching it, i don't even know if i liked it or not.

5/10

This film tells the story of a young man who lives a great life in his fantastic apartment in Paris. He meets a girl and fall in love, and his life is not the same again.

The film starts off great, with the signature Michel Gondry style of bizarre visual feast. I really like the clash of old and new technology, such as typing into a computer where there are tall people at the other end to process the command. It's imaginative and fun to watch. After an hour of visual feasts, we get to the main advertised plot. The film is not the same anymore, as it moves into a sombre direction. Then the plot derails into a fragmented mess, and I didn't quite know what the plot is really about. Overall, I wish the film was shorter as it really didn't need that much time to tell this story.

I went in to the theater without checking out the reviews beforehand, completely open-minded. I was drawn in by the word "surrealist" in the description, and curious to see whether the movie was going to compare with the early day movies like the 1902 A Trip to the Moon. This was when the totally new possibilities of film were being enthusiastically embraced, and for those long-gone creators the sky was the limit. I wasn't disappointed. It is fabulous how the director has created the most absurd situations and effects, giving the viewer the feeling of bouncing from one surrealist painting into another. It looks like a movie which must have been incredibly time-consuming to bring together, and in my mind Michel Gondry has totally succeeded. Bravo also to Marie-Charlotte Moreau, for her wonderful editing to bring about this beautiful result.

First of all, i must admit that I didn't read the book. So perhaps that's the reason I didn't get the purpose of this film.

I was attending this movie with great expectations, I love the work of Michel Gondry and I couldn't wait to see Audrey Tatou and Omar Sy playing together.

The special effects were great, and as I said before Michel Gondry is one of my favorites. But here's the thing, I was unhappy during the movie. I couldn't develop sympathy for the main characters, because the storyline felt missing too often. Combine that with the weird dialogs and the straying from one scene to another without a proper connection, you'll get why. The dialog, and I understand that this was adopted from the book, but in this movie it just didn't made sense.

I couldn't feel what I wanted to feel about this movie, I wanted to like it so badly but I couldn't. I feel the film was more focused on the special effects than on the actual character development and storyline.