User reviews

"Vincent & Theo" tells of the later years of the too short lives of painter Vincent Van Gogh and his lesser known brother, Theo. I was surprised, after viewing a Tivo'd version of the film, at how little has been written about and made of this wonderfully crafted period film by Robert Altman. Roth (Vincent) and Ryhs (Theo) distinguish themselves with superb performances which make the spectacle of their work on screen as interesting, if not more so, than the lives of their humble characters. The entire cast turns in solid performances, something which must be attributed largely to Altman, and the film offers excellence in every aspect with the possible exception of sound. Running a tad long for a somewhat less than extraordinary biography, "Vincent & Theo" is recommended for more mature viewers into period films or those with a special interest in Van Gogh and/or classical painting.

I knew something of Vincent van Gogh, and Theo for that matter, from reading Irving Stone's book about them (Titled "Lust for Life", I think). They were both copious letter writers, which is where most of the knowledge of them today comes from. I can't say enough about Tim Roth's performance in this film. As someone earlier remarked, Roth passed up the chance to ham it up, as many actors would do to portray van Gogh's madness. It's a much more realistic quiet desperation. I had barely heard of Roth, and didn't recognize him in "Pulp Fiction". Coincidentally, I had just seen him in "Little Odessa", another well done, but somewhat low-key performance. That one is worth checking out, too. The other actors, the direction, the photography were all first rate. The only reason I didn't give it a higher score is that the subject matter is sometimes unpleasant to watch. But if you are interested enough to read this comment, then you should see the film.

The familiar tragic story of Vincent van Gogh (Tim Roth) is broadened by focusing as well on his brother Theodore (Paul Rhys), who helped support Vincent. The movie also provides a nice view of the locations which Vincent painted.

There is no overstating the acting talents of Tim Roth. While American audiences may not have really noticed him until "Reservoir Dogs", he had been acting since 1982 and this film may have been his first great role. He makes Vincent his own, fully becoming the character.

Robert Altman had a great decade in the 1970s, slumped a bit in the 1980s, but came back hard in the 1990s with this one. He was a master and utilized Roth to the fullest.

Altman tells the oft-told story of Vincent Van Gogh and the much less told story of his art dealer brother. The story deftly avoids tortured artist cliches and builds both characters as complex, contradictory individuals. The acting is beyond excellent. Tim Roth shows considerable restraint as Van Gogh, a character that many actors would have chosen to overact. And Rhys's Theo calm surface subtly betrays his inner torment.

Altman's camera is a star here as well, and few directors today understand the principle of movement as well as he does. The photography ranges from good to excellent, and the whole films feels like a glimpse into Vincent's world. Like most of Altman's better films, it's character rather than plot driven, so some will certainly say that it's 'boring'. If you are prone to say things like this, it's probably not for you, but anyone who is a fan of Altman's earlier films will be pleased.

Although Robert Altman is proficient in re-creating the scenery of Van Gogh's life through the eyes of the painter with striking color and a vaguely bohemian atmosphere, he still fails to present Van Gogh the man or the artist in with any genuine originality. He focuses on Van Gogh, the tormented saint-artist, who forges ahead on the canvas with a drive to present the "suffering" of humanity. However, Altman precludes Van Gogh's obvious manias, his periods of demented elation. It is impossible to believe that the Van Gogh presented here could have produced those vibrant wheat fields in Arles, or the Night Café. What remains in this fractured (though never incompetent biopic), is Tim Roth's virtuoso performance; he managed to literally crawl into the skin of Van Gogh, and the result may frighten you. However, his virtuosity always overshadows Paul Rhys' rather tepid presentation of his brother Theo, though there are other admirable performances in the film, such as Wladimir Yordanoff's amiable presentation of Gauguin. Altman seems to be commenting, rather uninterestingly, about the commercial dimension of artistry, and of the impossibility of true recognition of genius. This is a conventional portrait of the unrecognized genius, it is a tale told again and again. However, Altman's imagery is captivating (with the help of Storraro), the photography looks like vibrant halos emitted by Van Gogh's paintings, though the musical score is dreadful and morbid. Still you much watch this one for Tim Roth's inspired performance if nothing else.

The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object.

"Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.

So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.

Robert Altman makes one of the great films about artistic expression, the utter and complete frustration with it, the dregs of having to go through the motions in a capitalistic society where taste is so subjective that it combs over the fact that an artist needs some recognition. We never see Vincent Van Gogh, via equally frustrated (though nowhere near as insane) brother Theo, sell any of his work, and it doesn't help things that as things get more and more desperate, and funds dry up and mental disintegration kicks in, Vincent just starts to snap or look like he'll snap any minute. It's a powerful film not because so much of the full-on drive of the plot, as Altman is infamous for making that the secondary characteristic (if at all) of his films, but for the camaraderie of two brothers, of the very intense push-and-pull between the two of them.

It also helps that Altman has three very crucial and, ultimately, exquisitely successful assets. First are his two main actors, Tim Roth and Paul Rhys. Both actors make up the brothers as having a similar temperament: anxiety brushed over by a quiet, isolated mind-set. But as brothers, the two of them act them as two far reaching personalities that somehow come back to the other through some form of need. That, in a way, is a subtext to much of what happens to either brother, of a need of acceptance never reached, either through financial gain or reputation, or just through some semblance of sanity or reason for being with the opposite sex. Rhys is perfect as an uptight, shy, but also very conflicted- sexually and sort of existentially- about what to do with his life, and with his poor brother. He has that look in his eyes like he's a solid individual, but seething underneath is rage and discontent, despite his best efforts. He pulls off this emotive being quite well, even if dipping a little into over-acting at times (he might seem to yell every other scene).

Roth, meanwhile, gives one of his crowning achievements as an actor, worthy of Pacino. When he's not going totally ape-s*** in throwing stuff on the ground or painting his or another's face or doing the token ear cutting scene (it's only a lobe, by the way, sorry to disappoint), he seems to be perfectly still with a calm voice, but eyes darting much of the time around. Roth makes Van Gogh less a caricature and more a full-bodied being, as far as can be in an Altman film this understanding of the nature of an artist of the period. You're never sure when he might suddenly snap back, and its equally tense and compelling to see Roth in the scenes of Van Gogh painting, in a field of flowers giving up or when he's transfixed in the act of creating when drawing the prostitute when she's not paying attention. This leads to the second asset, which is Stephen Altman's production design, where nothing is left to the imagination. This, in a way, allows for an almost surreal feeling underneath the veneer of the straightforward. It looks all as if it's shot on location; even the paintings look like they were on loan from the big galleries of the world.

And the third asset is Altman himself, though more over his trust in the material. One might wonder what Altman made his own of the script or what was already there. But it seems very much a move from the director to see how the film opens, which is odd and interesting, as footage from an auction where a Van Gogh fetches tens of millions of dollars goes on, with the audio transposed as if it were on some radio somewhere that doesn't exist in the background during the first scene with the brothers where they argue about money and painting and going to Paris. Throughout Altman is always assured with the lens, allowing his actors total freedom, and in this he evens gets creative as his main subject: watch the scene with Van Gogh in the field of dandelions, as his camera starts to do the small zooms and pans with the surroundings, as opposed to just the actor (this also goes for when Vincent and his first lady are in the gallery with the long landscape portrait that at first looks like a shot out of Antonioni). And Altman never goes for easy or cheesy stylizations when it comes to Vincent going off the deep end- we're given a look at it all as if it's so very simple, which makes it even more effective for his intents and purposes.

A tale that acts as a slight cautionary tale for aspiring artists, while also probing a mind so delirious and brilliant that it acts as a tale that offers up many interpretations psychologically and historically, Vincent & Theo is ultimately worthwhile for its collection of superlative scenes, of passion running through even in the smaller moments between characters. And the musical score is affecting as well- think a baroque duet with one side a punk rocker.

Robert Altman's flawed but compelling biography wants to explore the gap dividing creativity and commerce, but outside of a few temper tantrums the troubled relationship between the two Van Gogh siblings never quite finds the elusive balance between the business of art and the art of business. Brother Theo, the dealer whose passion for Vincent's work was equaled only by his inability to find a market for it, is presented in the role of Jekyll to his brother's unstable Hyde, and the tension of their mutual dependence on each other is reflected in a pair of dynamic performances. Both are shown to be equally neurotic and compulsive, but Altman clearly identifies with the under-appreciated artist, introduced in a stunning prologue contrasting his poverty with a multi-million dollar posthumous auction of one of his paintings. Altman can't sustain the same energy over the film's punishing 140-minute length, and his portrait of the artist can only take us as close as the brushstrokes on one of Vincent's canvasses. But if nothing else the unique cinematic style is unlikely to displease the director's many admirers, who at the time had been waiting for him to make a genuine film again.

...How you suffered for your sanity,

How you tried to set them free.

They would not listen, they're not listening still.

Perhaps they never will... "

Don McLean "Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)

Robert Altman's "Vincent & Theo" (1990), is as beautiful, powerful, and disturbing as the life of a man who could create the richest, most exiting paintings, who could never paint from his imagination but only by what he saw. How he saw the world around him was extraordinary. The life of the artist was not glamorous, it was depressing and self-destructing but as a result of his Art, we all have became a little richer, happier (even if for a moment) and better.

Based on letters written by Vincent van Gogh to his art-dealer brother Theo, this is a wonderful cinematic biography, perhaps one of the best ever made about the life of a painter. Tim Roth was sensational and Robert Altman IS one of the greatest directors of all times. His film looks at us through Vincent's eyes, and for two hours we are in Vincent's world of madness and genius.

I really enjoyed Pialat's VAN GOGH, a quiet, languid look at the last two months of the artist's life. While I wouldn't say Altman's take on it follows a standard biopic formula, it does lean more in that direction. It's got a lot more drama, a lot of more of those "jeez, this guy was nuts" moments (and a lot more too-clever "Ah ha, there he is painting that famous work!" bits). We see a number of angry, frustrated outbursts but don't really get a feel for what drove the man in his work or even in his torment. Still, it's a very watchable film with a compelling and not-too-hammy performance by Tim Roth. Paul Rhys is also good in a more subdued role. Although the film is generally rather conventional, there are a few interesting touches, most memorably the film's opening as one of his sunflowers paintings is auctioned for millions, intercut with a scene of the artist living in poverty. A little too on-the-nose, but effective. Interesting score as well.

"Vincent and Theo" invents one sordid and revolting scene after another and succeeds only in cheapening the legacy of both Vincent and his brother Theo. Though distinctly argumentative and quirky, Vincent was exceedingly well read and well spoken, and had a deeply thoughtful and intellectual rationale for his passionate art, while Theo was an intelligent and personable individual who was successful and highly regarded. Both brothers are ruthlessly sullied and presented as pathetic individuals without any positive attributes in this horrid film. As another reviewer noted, the art works presented in this film are amateur cartoons of the originals, which is certainly not an insignificant detail in a film about a great artist. To understand Vincent and his brother Theo as complex and remarkable individuals, read "Van Gogh: The Life" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, a brilliantly researched and eloquently written biography, which is like living with Vincent through nearly every day of his entire life, enabled through the many letters preserved, not just between the brothers but among Vincent's entire family and other artists as well. The 1956 film, "Lust for Life", while admittedly quaint, offers a much more accurate biographical sketch in representing the significant life events of Vincent Van Gogh, and more accurately reveals the complexity of the characters. Further, "Lust for Life", uses actual reproductions of all of the original artwork presented, adding up to a very enjoyable and insightful film. "Vincent and Theo" is a ghastly, cheap horror flick that panders with its base vulgarity and is successful only in defiling the complex and fascinating story of Vincent and his beloved brother Theo.

A woefully overlooked film, this is one of my very favorite by Altman. Amazing acting by Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, and the whole film is tremendously moving.

For me, Altman achieves a sort of dream state even more interesting than in the more critically acclaimed '3 Women'. He manages to make you feel the whole story as completely real, as if you were there in history, and yet, it has a fractured, dreamlike quality, with moments left unexplained and mysterious, but always making emotional sense.

I don't know any film that better captures the pain of being an artist, or the pain of being unable to save someone you love. Also, the whole film looks gloriously like a painting.

There is a longer version, originally made for European TV, but I actually think the rhythms are better in the US theatrical cut. The Euro version mostly adds tons of exposition that takes away from the mysterious, subjective tone that makes this work so well -- at least for me.

I found myself admiring Robert Altman's film about Vincent Van Gogh much less on my recent viewing than I had on previous ones. I will admit that there's something fascinating about it, as there almost always is with any Altman film, even his really bad ones (and this is certainly not one of his really bad ones), but it's a one-note and monotonous film, and the central relationship that the film explores remains cloudy and obscure.

Altman isn't interested in making a straight biopic about Van Gogh, and for that I'm grateful. The last thing the world needs is another tortured artist biopic. He instead focuses, as the film's title implies, on the relationship between Vincent and his brother, Theo. Tim Roth plays Vincent as a portrait of the artist as a mad man; in his hands, Vincent is mentally ill to the point that he can barely function. This gives Roth lots of scenery to chew, and it may even be an accurate portrayal, but it doesn't make for a very interesting character. It falls to Paul Rhys, playing Theo, to develop a character around which the film can anchor itself, but I'm not sure I ever fully understood Theo either. He seems as troubled as Vincent, but we're never sure why. He seems to regard himself as a failure, in business and the bedroom. He spends his working hours selling bad art to people with no artistic sensibility and harboring feelings of guilt at not being able to sell his brother's paintings. His love life is hampered by syphilis.

The script suggests that the two brothers had a love/hate relationship -- they couldn't get along, yet each got from the other something he couldn't get anywhere else. What that something is is never clear, and without that, the film unfolds as a series of scenes in which the men flare out in erratic bursts of anger, over and over and over again, until both die, miserable and alone.

Visually, the film looks terrific. The art director suggests Van Gogh in his production design, and it's fun to pick out the locations that would become the subjects of some of Van Gogh's most famous paintings. Gabriel Yared provides the weird electronic score, which sometimes is too much and other times is just right.

Whatever its flaws, "Vincent & Theo" is miles ahead of that other Van Gogh film, Vincente Minellie's hopelessly dull and overacted "Lust for Life" from 1956.

Grade: B

This story is one of the most interesting I know. Unfortunately, the script misses the real drama of this important life. But never mind. The real art of the film is in two achievements:

--Altman frames and colors his shots through Vincent's eyes. This is the most sensitive use of the cinematic palette I've seen, and makes the experience singular. I saw it on a TV, which I hate to do. I would travel to see this properly projected.

--Time Roth gives interprets Vincent wonderfully. If you ignore the lines, which are vapid, and concentrate on his being, it's quite nuanced. He is meek in body, but passionate in expression. The teeth and pipe are great.

"Vincent and Theo" dramatizes the friendship between Vincent and Theodore van Gogh. Under Robert Alterman, Julian Mitchell's Vincent and Leo is a riveting and unsettling examination of both men's tumultuous life. Although dramatizations of historical events or lives have never been my thing, I was hesitant to enjoy this movie as Vincent's mental suffering is wonderfully portrayed. Though he is a legend, Tim Roth, Vincent van Gogh's actor, shows his genius in this early work. Theo Van Gogh was portrayed by Paul Rhys opposite Tim Roth, and their connection was obvious from beginning. The first scene depicts the sale of "Sunflowers" then switches to Vincent and Leo arguing over money. This scenario was great because it showed how little Vincent benefitted from the huge sums his paintings sold for. Tim Roth did a fantastic job showing how much Vincent loved painting, while Paul Rhys showed how much Theo loved his brother but equally wanted to succeed in the art world on the other side. Vincent and Theo were complex characters that seemed to fight throughout the film, yet we're all trying to succeed in painting. Watching Vincent van Gogh struggle mentally till his death was depressing. He started the movie as a wide-eyed art lover who wanted nothing more than to be a painter and succeed, letting that passion and determination overtake him. When his initial relationship with the prostitute ends, I suppose the fractures appear. Vincent loves this woman and gave up his mentor to be with her, but he can't assist her enough, and he loses her and the setbacks keep coming. While Theo's life isn't easier, it's more comfortable. Vincent After discovering he has syphilis, his personal life suffers. Theo wants the bride, 2 1/2 kids, and white picket fence, but he's embarrassed of his condition. Vincent wants to succeed in painting. I enjoyed this movie's tune since it created suspense that builds till the finish. The movie's many plot leaps without explanation bothered me. Vincent van Gogh has a fight with an artistic idol before cutting off his ear. I think the movie should clarify why they broke up and why they fought. It's a good film overall. It gets 7 out of 10.

It reveals several aspects of Van Gogh's life that are interesting and less discussed by other movies. A realistic and artistic movie.

Vincent and Theo, directed by Robert Altman, was released in November of 1990. The film was produced by Ludi Boeken and written by Julian Mitchell, with Jean Lépine serving as cinematographer. Gabriel Yared, who has previous experience working with Altman, composed the film's musical score. Vincent and Theo stars Tim Roth as Victor van Gogh and Paul Rhys as Theo van Gogh.

Vincent and Theo focuses on the dynamic between Vincent van Gogh and his brother Theo van Gogh, and the way that the two men move throughout their interconnected lives. The film opens by showing an art auction, at which we see van Gogh's painting Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sell for millions of dollars. Van Gogh's work was largely unrecognized during his lifetime, but gained prominence and fame after his death. From there, Altman takes the audience on a journey of the two brother's lives, showing Vincent's development as an artist under the financial support of his brother, along with his deteriorating mental stability. Concurrently, the audience learns about the events of Theo's life, including his battle with syphilis and the pressure for him to be a successful art dealer. Additionally, Altman uses part of the film to highlight the time Vincent spent in Arles, France, with Paul Gauguin (played by Wladimir Yordanoff).

Tim Roth is masterful in his performance as Vincent van Gogh, he completely commits to the character and offers a deeply moving portrayal of van Gogh's tragic life. Paul Rhys also has a very compelling performance, as the audience learns more about the history of his life in relation to his brother's. The cinematography of the film is beautiful, and many of the landscapes shown almost looking like paintings themselves (which is noteworthy because van Gogh painted so many versions of the environments around him). Additionally, Gabriel Yared's musical score complements the visuals of the film, and is also used to showcase Vincent's erratic emotional state. During the film, scenes in which Vincent is shown having emotional outbursts are set to intense music which enables the audience to appreciate the severity of these episodes. One of these scenes takes place in a field of sunflowers, also providing a callback to the opening of the film in which Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sells at auction.

I enjoyed and would recommend this film, especially for viewers who are interested in an untraditional look at some of the intricacies of van Gogh's life.

As a huge fan of Van Gogh, this film really let me down. I wasn't betting on it being that good, since it had Robert Altman directing the film, a filmmaker known for making extremely boring films, and Tim Roth playing Vincent.

My low expectations were not rewarded. No one has any real conversations in the movie. It's just a long line of taunting, hissy-fits and unspoken feelings running high.

Theo's story has been virtually unheard of, due to his brother's overwhelming talent and popularity. But this version of his story doesn't do the art dealer any kind of justice. He is aggressive, whiny and seemingly just as mad as his brother. He is needlessly cruel to his wife and neglects his baby. Worst of all, there is no genuine portrayal of tenderness towards his brother Vincent. Their relationship, although tumultuous at times, was extremely loving, sweet and caring in real life, but I find none of it here.

Tim Roth as Vincent simply just doesn't cut it for me. Just like his paintings, Vincent was variegated, passionate, intense and caring, as well as troubled, manic and deeply sad. Roth, who is known for playing gangsters or London thugs, is portrayed as nothing more than a bipolar painter who harms himself.

The script also just made the film very boring indeed. There is no nuanced flexibility in the story arc of the Van Gogh brother's lives. I didn't really feel any artistic passion or benevolent feelings for the characters.

If you want a good portrayal of Vincent Van Gogh, watch Benedict Cumberbatch in Van Gogh Painted With Words, or Tony Curran in the Doctor Who episode "Vincent and The Doctor". These two performances give out a much better understanding of the man behind all of the famously rich, vibrant paintings.

I love this depiction of vincent and theo, of their relationship, i wish more biographies would talk about his sisters more even though he was closest with theo and he was essentially vincents care taker, but i think it does take away from the story a bit; this is however my favorite movie currently. The image of vincent as a mentally ill, starving artist shines through and resonates loud and clear in a way other versions of him just dont atleast to me? I love to see vincent the lover of prostitutes, the loud and emotional man, someone who was deeply confused with self. Others just dont do him justice the way this does ive never seen myself in someones impulsive actions more, "why did he do this" he couldnt stop himself from it and thats whats presented here. I love the depth they give theo aswell.

Basic Info: Director: Robert Altman Writer: Julian Mitchell Key Players: Tim Roth, Paul Rhys, Johanna ter Steege, Wladimir Yordanoff Producer: Ludi Boeken, David Willis, and Stuart Baird

The movie "Vincent & Theo" is a biographical drama directed by Robert Altman attempting to explore the intricate relationship between Vincent van Gogh and his brother, Theo. The film tells the story of the iconic artist, Vincent, and his brother Theo, who supports him throughout their turbulent lives.

"Vincent & Theo" has its merits, but it does not live up to its potential. Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, who portray Vincent and Theo in the film, deliver the film's strongest performances, bringing depth to their complex characters. Tim Roth's portrayal of Vincent's mental anguish and artistic passion is notable, but it also contributes to the film's disturbing nature.

The film suffers from a disjointed narrative that is often confusing and fragmented. The movie's storyline lacks cohesion, often jumping randomly between different parts of Vincent's life. Viewers may find the slow pace tedious, and the long runtime can become tiresome. It was difficult for me to get through this movie due to the slow pacing and the many disturbing scenes.

The film is disturbing in the sense that it delves deeply into Vincent van Gogh's mental struggles and his troubled relationship with his brother. It doesn't shy away from depicting Vincent van Gogh's inner torment, which I found to be emotionally distressing as a viewer.

I wanted to like this movie, but unfortunately, it fell short of my expectations. The film attempted to shed light on the complex dynamics between two brothers, but its disjointed narrative and slow pacing made it a challenging watch. The disturbing portrayal of Vincent's mental state was very unsettling to watch.

In conclusion, "Vincent & Theo" might interest art history enthusiasts, but I wouldn't recommend it. It fails to provide a satisfying exploration of the Van Gogh brothers' relationship and struggles, and its disturbing elements may deter many viewers from fully enjoying the experience. Four stars for the effort but not the execution.