Amelie

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
OK everybody...

Beautifully filmed rendition of the nobler side of human nature?

Or...

Over-romanticised gloop with dodgy racial overtones and a gurning big-footed nutter in the lead role?

Le conflit se commence... bonne chance, tout le monde!

Will McKenzie, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Qu'est qu'il fait, l'ecriture de 'new answers' ? Quoiqu'il fait, je l'ecris...

Will McKenzie, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Je n'ai pas vu ce film, mais c'est vrai qu'elle a le meme visage que monsieur l'haricot.

Madchen, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Soppy, sappy and lovely in equal effect. Point is that I do not believe in love at first sight, or the idea of soulmates - which the film to a lesser or greater extent panders to. Nevertheless I do find the narrative style and the visual beauty sucks you in far more that the films many shortcomings (overly cute and gamine lead, tweeness) washed over me. Luckily the lead and the film (the two are pretty much intertwined) have a dark side which makes the loveliness of the rest of it bearable. That said I am still intrigued by the great lost film at its heart - Amelie starring Emily Watson.

I do think the racist slur which has been attatched to it is a bit of a red herring. Its like saying Notting Hill is racist because it has no black characters in it. There certainly isn't a white only rule for the extras in the film, and when you look at it there really aren't that many core characters. Its as much a film about Paris as Notting Hill is a film about London - all the touchstones are there but its not making any grand gestures.

Certainly one of the films of the year, just because of its extraordinary rythmn.

Pete, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(Pardonnez mon français) Je l'ai vu il y a quatre mois (à Bruxelles) vers le sommet de son succès - sans sous-titres, donc je ne comprenait pas tout le film bien sûr. Mais, c'est facile de voir comment est-ce qu'il y a beaucoup de personnes qui adorent la petite Audrey. Moi aussi.

As for the movie - there is something fairly nauseating about the idea that there is someone above us all who alone puts the world to rights by doing good deeds (and takes revenge on our behalf when we are mistreated). I did quite enjoy Amélie tracking down and drawing in her potential lover, but once she had him I couldn't work out what she was doing in the last 20 minutes...

Jeff, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

>>>Beautiful Soppy, sappy and in the equal effect. The point is that I do not believe in the thunderbolt, or the idea of the soulmates - with which the film or larger panders of width. Nevertheless I find the model narratif and the visual beauty sucks you in good more than films that many imperfections (excessively nice and lead of gamine, tweeness) washed above me. Fortunately the lead and the film (both are pretty much intertwined) have a side in black which returns the loveliness of the remainder of him bearable. That indicated that I am still intrigued by large film lost in his heart - Amelie starring Emily Watson. I think that the racist slur which was attatched with him is a little a red herring. Its taste indicating the hill of Notting is racist because it is not any black in him. There is not certainly a rule of white only for the additional expenses in film, and there when you look at it really is not that many digs characters. A its as much film about Paris which the hill of Notting is a film about London - all the touchstones are there but its manufacture of any large gesture. Certainly one of films of the year, just because of extraordinary sound rythmn -- Peter (pb14@soas.ac.uk), <<<<

Mike Hanle y, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pete said: 'I do think the racist slur which has been attatched to it is a bit of a red herring. Its like saying Notting Hill is racist because it has no black characters in it".

I agree with you, Pete. I don't think it's a film that is trying to make political points one way or another.

But the 'race' thing in France isn't just about the casting. Serge Kaganski (the guy who raised the issue in the first place) first argued about how the cleaned up, glossy 'look' of the film (to be honest, it doesn't really look like 1997, does it?) looks more like the 1930s films of Marcel and Carne. He pointed to how this ties in to the false-nostalgic rhetoric of Le Pen. It a bit difficult to write a synopsis of Kaganski's argument here, but it's at:

http:www.liberation.com/quotidien/debats/mai01/20010531c.html

Personally, I think Kaganski seems to be playing devil's advocate for the hell of it. He has certainly raised his public profile!

Will McKenzie, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hanle y - can you rewrite all of my posts. That is a thing of beauty and a joy forever.

Pete, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two years pass...
it was ok, but kind of cold and pointless. the cartoony effects detracted also. i thought the colours were good, very red and green

gareth (gareth), Sunday, 14 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked the film. It was very twee and wide-eyed romantic, which is what I totally go for, and at the same time isn't as gimmicky as a mid-'90s romcom starring Meg Ryan and/or Tom Hanks, which is really good. However, I can imagine that someone who goes for more gritty realism and darker themes in their films wouldn't particularly go for this one.

Another reason for a completely hetero chickie such as myself to go for the film -- the gorgeousness of Matthieu Kassovitz. ;)

Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Sunday, 14 March 2004 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm a pretty twee wide-eyed romantic myself, but watching this film was like being beaten over the head with audrey tautou's intense adorableness for 122 minutes. even mother teresa might puke.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 14 March 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Pete was correct in his initial post, but then I haven't seen the film in two years. Maybe I've become more jaded in the interim.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 14 March 2004 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Its worth a watch for the fusion of the scenes and the soundtrack (very underrated, did a thread abt it on ILM) alone.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 14 March 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)


it was ok, but kind of cold and pointless.

Cold and pointless?!? Gareth, areth thou krazee? I loved the film. Even though I am not much of a fan of european films (hah!), I fell completely in love with the sound, images and message. It's just so utterly sweet.

jesus nathalie (nathalie), Sunday, 14 March 2004 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)

GOOD TWEE

but not great twee

stevem (blueski), Sunday, 14 March 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

saw the first 20 minutes on tv at christmas and spent the first weekend after christmas looking for the dvd only to fail to find it anywhere (which is odd because it used to be everywhere).

first 15 minutes were great though.

andy

koogs (koogs), Sunday, 14 March 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

insufferable movie

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 14 March 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm shocked. I loved it. Truly truly truly. Made my heart sing and dance. Just delightful. Lovely cinematography and post-production, audrey tautou is lovely etc.

So two misfits with strange likes find love through the best efforts of their attemtps to sabotage their own happiness through painful shyness. What's not to like?

Dave B (daveb), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

have decided True Romance is tweer

stevem (blueski), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

What's not to like?

El Diablo to thread.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Gareth and J.D. - they articulate what was pretty dumb about this film.

Amity (Amity), Monday, 15 March 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Aside from a tumbling routine by the cinematographer, there is virtually no difference between this movie and Chocolat. I loathed Chocolat.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 15 March 2004 06:41 (twenty-one years ago)


after i saw it the first time, i walked all the way home from the movies. that's 4 miles. in manchester. in early february.

fckn best thing ever. and yeah 'true romance' is tweer. and still ace.

piscesboy, Monday, 15 March 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's excellent. The only bit I didn't like was the sex shop which I thought was needlessly contrived (even in a very contrived film). But everything is so sparkly and pretty in it. I appreciated it even more after going to Paris and then watching it and realizing what a fantasy view of the city it is.

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Monday, 15 March 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked the episode of Home Movies last night where Brendan attempts a thinly veiled rip off of Amelie with a heroine named Amy Lee.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 15 March 2004 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

three years pass...

What supervenes over everything else is the relentlessportrayal of a cartoonish heroine. Watching this again, there is some kind of lack of respect in the infantile way the camera almost gloats over the heroine's innocence. It's a little off, a little bit creepy. Only a true misogynist could even entertain the existence of a gamin like Amelie.

moley, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:29 (seventeen years ago)

It's the shots of her feet that get me. Her halting, innocent shuffle makes me feel more manipulated than anything else I've ever seen. Appalling movie.

Just got offed, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:39 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, yes! What an idiot that woman is. Only poverty and bourbon kept us alive through this preposterous piece of pretentious poppycock. Pah! Amelie, I fart in your general direction.

moley, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:34 (seventeen years ago)

i can't remember this film, thank the lord.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:48 (seventeen years ago)

it's OK

blueski, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:52 (seventeen years ago)

http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/thumb/f/f8/Fromthebalcony.JPG/300px-Fromthebalcony.JPG

stevie, Saturday, 18 August 2007 14:57 (seventeen years ago)

love it. still.

yers fancy-pants all o yers.

pisces, Saturday, 18 August 2007 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

nine months pass...

Never seen this before last night.

For someone who's meant to be be really kind, she's a bit mean to her dad. She steals his gnome!

And considering everyone's been telling me "it's about Paris" for the past six years, you don't really get to see much of it. Well, Montmartre you do. And bits of the Metro.

James Mitchell, Sunday, 25 May 2008 10:15 (seventeen years ago)

I really can't abide this film.

chap, Sunday, 25 May 2008 16:56 (seventeen years ago)

I vaguely remember reading an interview with Jeunet concerning his portrayal of Paris, where he said it was ridiculous to critize the film on these grounds. That it is a fairy tale, and is set in a fairy tale Paris where everything is simple and there's no dog shit on the ground.

It seems like a lot of the criticism of Amelie is directed at the setting and characters and plot and so on. But it makes no claim to be otherwise, and can and should be enjoyed as light, clever fantasy, as a fairy tale romance. The whole arc of the film is watching Amelie's eventual detachment from her twee little fantasy world, and while it may have been more interesting to have city itself grow a bit in turn, it doesn't ruin the film to have the simpler story. The film is only in part about Paris, and not the real Paris, the one that's on your parent's decades-old postcards. If this is not your thing -- it isn't mine, really -- so be it, but I don't understand the level of animosity directed towards it.

Jacob, Sunday, 25 May 2008 17:40 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.