13 reviews
An entrancing curiosity, if hard to parse
- I_Ailurophile
- Jul 24, 2021
- Permalink
I liked it
Seen at the Viennale 2017: With actresses like Marion Cotillard and Charlotte Gainsbourg you have a winner anyway. Just to look at them acting is worth the movie. Gainsbourg plays the actual girlfriend and Cotillard the wife coming back to her husband after 20 years away. Director Arnaud Desplechin was present at the screening. Asked about choosing Gainsbourg for girlfriend and Cotillard for the back coming wife, he answered, he could have chosen the actresses the other way round, too. For sure it would have become a different movie. I would like to see also this other version. Sadly, it will never be directed...
Top actresses lost in messy screenplay
The basis for a good film is always a good screenplay. Because the screenplay of 'Les fantômes d'Ismaël' is a mess, the film is a failure. What is undoubtedly meant as an intelligent multi-layered story highlighting the many aspects in the life of a film maker, is in reality an incomprehensible hodgepodge of subplots going nowhere.
Right from the very beginning, the viewer is confused. The first few scenes are not scenes from the film we're watching, but from a film within the film, which is being shot by lead character Ismaël. The main plot item, however, is the return of his wife, who has been missing for 20 years and was presumed dead. This in itself can be fine material for a well-acted drama, exploring the way the husband, his girlfriend and his long lost wife cope with this new situation. With multiple award winning actresses like Charlotte Gainsbourg and Marion Cotillard on hand, this would seem to be the most logical option.
Instead, the viewer is offered a myriad of increasingly complicated side-stories, flash backs and dream-like sequences, culminating in a laughable scene of the tormented film maker shooting his own executive producer by accident. I have no doubt this film tries to make a point, but I'm afraid only the director knows which one. Unless you're a fan of French pseudo-intellectual art-house dramas, this film is to be avoided.
Right from the very beginning, the viewer is confused. The first few scenes are not scenes from the film we're watching, but from a film within the film, which is being shot by lead character Ismaël. The main plot item, however, is the return of his wife, who has been missing for 20 years and was presumed dead. This in itself can be fine material for a well-acted drama, exploring the way the husband, his girlfriend and his long lost wife cope with this new situation. With multiple award winning actresses like Charlotte Gainsbourg and Marion Cotillard on hand, this would seem to be the most logical option.
Instead, the viewer is offered a myriad of increasingly complicated side-stories, flash backs and dream-like sequences, culminating in a laughable scene of the tormented film maker shooting his own executive producer by accident. I have no doubt this film tries to make a point, but I'm afraid only the director knows which one. Unless you're a fan of French pseudo-intellectual art-house dramas, this film is to be avoided.
I have never seen so many people leave the cinema
As many have said, the premise of this film is very good, but it is lost in a mess of structure that would shame must university film society. It is a number of stories within a story, which lose momentum as the film continues. The main plot is the sudden reappearance of a film maker's wife after an absence of 21 years, but this is submerged by unnecessary interludes.
I watched the film at the French Film Festival in Sydney, and throughout the film people trickled out, not returning. What kept me was the excellent acting as ever from Cotillard and Gainsbourg, but you honestly wonder why and how they signed up for such a messy screenplay.
If this film was a blind date, it would talk erratically at you for nearly two hours, then leave abruptly for no reason. Avoid.
I watched the film at the French Film Festival in Sydney, and throughout the film people trickled out, not returning. What kept me was the excellent acting as ever from Cotillard and Gainsbourg, but you honestly wonder why and how they signed up for such a messy screenplay.
If this film was a blind date, it would talk erratically at you for nearly two hours, then leave abruptly for no reason. Avoid.
- jdrennan13
- Mar 16, 2018
- Permalink
What a waste of acting and creative talent...
"Ismael's Ghosts" (2017 release from France; 135 min.; original title "Les Fantômes d'Ismaël" ) brings the story of Ismael. As the movie opens, we follow the conversation among several bureaucrats at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the mysterious disappearance of a certain Ivan Dedalus, who had just started his career there. As it turns out this story is being developed in the mind of Ismael, a film maker. We get to know Ismael, as he carries on with his girlfriend Sylvie. We learn that Ismael's wife Carlotta, who mysteriously disappeared 20 years ago, and Ismael had her officially listed as "missing". Then one day at the beach, Sylvie runs into a woman she thinks is Carlotta... IS it the real Carlotta? how will this affect Ismael? and what about the movie-within-the-movie? At this point we are less than 15 minutes into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director (and co-writer) Arnaud Desplechin, whose previous movie was the likable "Golden Days" (original title "Trois Souvenirs de ma Jeunesse"). Here, Desplechin rides several parallel story lines: the complicated life and relationships of Ismael, whether or not the real Carlotta has come back, and the movie-within-the-movie. It should make for an appealing mix, but alas, you might be wrong. First of all, I just don't "get" the point" of the movie-within-the-movie, which simply doesn't seem to have any connection with the real movie--and if it does, I completely missed it. Second, the relationships that play out between the three main characters never came across as genuine or believable. And that is a darn shame for Charlotte Gainsbourg (whom I otherwise absolutely adore) in the role of Sylvie, Marion Cotillard as Carlotta, and Mathieu Amalric as Ismael. I mean, those are top notch names, but even they cannot save this movie. Bottom line: "Ismael's Ghosts" is a giant waste of acting and creative talent.
"Ismeal's Ghosts" premiered at last year's Cannes film festival, to ho-hum acclaim. Almost to the day a year later, the movie opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. Truthfully, if it weren't for the fact that this stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, I doubt I would've gone to see it. As it was, the Monday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended poorly (3 people, including myself), and I cannot see this playing longer than one week in the theater (at least here in Cincinnati). I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater (not very likely at this point), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director (and co-writer) Arnaud Desplechin, whose previous movie was the likable "Golden Days" (original title "Trois Souvenirs de ma Jeunesse"). Here, Desplechin rides several parallel story lines: the complicated life and relationships of Ismael, whether or not the real Carlotta has come back, and the movie-within-the-movie. It should make for an appealing mix, but alas, you might be wrong. First of all, I just don't "get" the point" of the movie-within-the-movie, which simply doesn't seem to have any connection with the real movie--and if it does, I completely missed it. Second, the relationships that play out between the three main characters never came across as genuine or believable. And that is a darn shame for Charlotte Gainsbourg (whom I otherwise absolutely adore) in the role of Sylvie, Marion Cotillard as Carlotta, and Mathieu Amalric as Ismael. I mean, those are top notch names, but even they cannot save this movie. Bottom line: "Ismael's Ghosts" is a giant waste of acting and creative talent.
"Ismeal's Ghosts" premiered at last year's Cannes film festival, to ho-hum acclaim. Almost to the day a year later, the movie opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. Truthfully, if it weren't for the fact that this stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, I doubt I would've gone to see it. As it was, the Monday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended poorly (3 people, including myself), and I cannot see this playing longer than one week in the theater (at least here in Cincinnati). I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater (not very likely at this point), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.
- paul-allaer
- May 20, 2018
- Permalink
All over the place
I suppose I'm lucky in the sense that unlike the other reviewers on here, I didn't pay to watch this film in a theater, but streamed it on Hulu. I approached it with high hopes since the title and brief synopsis seemed promising, but as the film went on I would get more and more disappointed. I thought the main character's film and his writing would just remain a side plot rather than eventually consume the whole thing. I was much more interested in learning about this long lost wife and his past relationship with her, but instead the movie just goes a million directions at once. We certainly learn about "les fantomes d'Ismaël" but are still left lost as to why they're there in the first place or why any of them matter more than the plot about the wife ?! Honestly this is a film that even pretentious hipsters won't have the right to say that they understood, because the film is a hot mess. Yes it may have some solid French talent in the cast, but their gifts went to waste due to a tangled storyline that never exactly gets detangled. I'm a fan of French films, but this one is just not good, sorry to say.
What a complete and ultimatley hollow mess
I saw this film up in Cambridge, with a sophisticated crowd and more than half the audience walked out.
I am all for narrative complexity, but pretentiousness and complexity for the sake of complexity is artificial and pompous.
I think the only people who like this film are self conscious lowbrow audience that simply assumes its convolution has some meaning that escaped them, or that throwing in disjointed and out of place ad frankly random surreal elements is somehow a good onto itself.
In the end, despite recruitment of solid acting talent, this is just an amazingly bad film.
I am all for narrative complexity, but pretentiousness and complexity for the sake of complexity is artificial and pompous.
I think the only people who like this film are self conscious lowbrow audience that simply assumes its convolution has some meaning that escaped them, or that throwing in disjointed and out of place ad frankly random surreal elements is somehow a good onto itself.
In the end, despite recruitment of solid acting talent, this is just an amazingly bad film.
- VoyagerMN1986
- Oct 5, 2018
- Permalink
Worth to watch
Story is attractive even though it does not have any spesific end. The close-ups and lake vistas behind is very impressive.
- recepakalan
- Apr 12, 2020
- Permalink
Save your money
This film is a stinker. The premise seems interesting enough - a woman disappeared 20 years earlier, the husband and family not sure if she was dead. Other than that, the film goes downhill fast. The plot is boring, and the film jumps around to various sub-plots. The dialog is bad - the characters speak in a way that you shake your head and say "Who speaks like that in real life?" Not sure if it's a translation issue, but this seems to be consistent throughout the movie.
It's basically a movie about the dialog, not so much the weak, unbelievable story.
You really don't care about the characters. To add to the torture, the movie is over 2 hours long, so the suffering is extended. Avoid it like the plague.
No idea what it is about
I watched the whole film, but still have no idea what the story is about. The film starts off interesting, but becomes increasingly disjointed as time goes on. I cannot understand what it is about towards the end.
A symphony of emptiness
How is it possible to produce such an empty film. It is devoid of any social, societal, political or economic reality. The acting is pachydermic (Charlotte Gainsbourg has the charisma of a folding chair, László Szabó can't act - it's about time -, Marion Cotillard looks like a meme of herself). The characters are all unsympathetic. That is to say, unpleasant and painful. No empathy is possible. Impressive. An edifying film to show in film schools. It has no hysteresis. It is very strong to use such big strings, neurasthenic voice-over, mawkish music, bloated and pontificating plot.
It is impossible to believe for a fraction of a second in these two female characters who are fighting for the character of Mathieu Amalric who does tons to give the impression that he is an artist (only the impression). Who could at least commit suicide, which would end the diegesis (to be studied for the remake). To be saved, a nude shot of Marion Cotillard. And for what?
It is impossible to believe for a fraction of a second in these two female characters who are fighting for the character of Mathieu Amalric who does tons to give the impression that he is an artist (only the impression). Who could at least commit suicide, which would end the diegesis (to be studied for the remake). To be saved, a nude shot of Marion Cotillard. And for what?
- norbert-plan-618-715813
- Feb 17, 2023
- Permalink
the impossible return
Arnaud Desplechin does not make light movies. His characters seem to have been born and live permanently among dilemmas and crises, and the director's cinematic visions transport his viewers into the troubled worlds of his heroes. This is also the case with 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël', his 2017 film which takes a classic 'love triangle' formula to confront his heros with painful questions about the ages of love, about presence and absence in relationships, about reality, fantasy and nightmares in artistic creation. The result in this case is a quite chaotic film, but also full of essence, with a charm amplified by an exceptional cast.
The scene that opens the action in 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' (although it is not the first scene of the film) seems to mirror the key scene in 'Sous le sable', the 2000 film by Francois Ozon. Both take place on a beach and are shot from similar angles, as if it were the same beach. In Francois Ozon's film, the manleaves his wife on the beach and goes swimming in the ocean. He will disappear and the rest of the film will be about the search for him. In Arnaud Desplechin's film, one of the heroines, Carlotta, aseems to appear from the sea, retracing the route in reverse. The woman is the 21-year-old missing wife of Ismaël, a screenwriter and film director. 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' will be about the consequences of the absence and reappearance in the man's life of the woman who had left him suddenly and without trace or explanation long time before. After many years of waiting and searching, he had declared her officially missing. He had begun a new relationship with Sylvia, a shy astrophysicist, also past her prime youth. He had kept in touch with Henri, Carlotta's father, a Holocaust survivor and famous director. In the middle of creating a new film based on the figure of his brother Ivan - a diplomat and maybe a spy -, Ismaël sees his whole life called into question by the appearance of his missing wife, with his identity, biographical and sentimental landmarks overturned or annihilated.
The narrative style chosen by the screenwriters (including the director) is non-linear and creates the impression of intentional disorder. Looking closely, it seemed to me that it reflects the feelings of the main character, even if he does not appear in all scenes. At the beginning we look at a life that seems to have stabilized, with flashbacks that recall the trauma of the disappearance of the young wife 21 years ago, but also the episodes of meeting and beginning the relationship with Sylvia, that happened two years before. As the story progresses, and especially after Carlotta appears, events multiply and accelerate in the pace of the hero's experiences: memories, nightmares, creative crisis, images from the future film. The finale surprises with a total change of tone. Mathieu Amalric is probably one of the most suitable film actors to bring to the screen the image of a man in deep crisis, overwhelmed by the events of life. Marion Cotillard and Charlotte Gainsbourg are two of my favorite actresses and the joy of seeing them together (and even confronting each other) in the same film was immense. Two more secondary roles caught my attention, giving László Szabó and Hippolyte Girardot consistent creations despite their short screen time. To me, 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' seems to be an unfairly little watched, discussed and appreciated film.
The scene that opens the action in 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' (although it is not the first scene of the film) seems to mirror the key scene in 'Sous le sable', the 2000 film by Francois Ozon. Both take place on a beach and are shot from similar angles, as if it were the same beach. In Francois Ozon's film, the manleaves his wife on the beach and goes swimming in the ocean. He will disappear and the rest of the film will be about the search for him. In Arnaud Desplechin's film, one of the heroines, Carlotta, aseems to appear from the sea, retracing the route in reverse. The woman is the 21-year-old missing wife of Ismaël, a screenwriter and film director. 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' will be about the consequences of the absence and reappearance in the man's life of the woman who had left him suddenly and without trace or explanation long time before. After many years of waiting and searching, he had declared her officially missing. He had begun a new relationship with Sylvia, a shy astrophysicist, also past her prime youth. He had kept in touch with Henri, Carlotta's father, a Holocaust survivor and famous director. In the middle of creating a new film based on the figure of his brother Ivan - a diplomat and maybe a spy -, Ismaël sees his whole life called into question by the appearance of his missing wife, with his identity, biographical and sentimental landmarks overturned or annihilated.
The narrative style chosen by the screenwriters (including the director) is non-linear and creates the impression of intentional disorder. Looking closely, it seemed to me that it reflects the feelings of the main character, even if he does not appear in all scenes. At the beginning we look at a life that seems to have stabilized, with flashbacks that recall the trauma of the disappearance of the young wife 21 years ago, but also the episodes of meeting and beginning the relationship with Sylvia, that happened two years before. As the story progresses, and especially after Carlotta appears, events multiply and accelerate in the pace of the hero's experiences: memories, nightmares, creative crisis, images from the future film. The finale surprises with a total change of tone. Mathieu Amalric is probably one of the most suitable film actors to bring to the screen the image of a man in deep crisis, overwhelmed by the events of life. Marion Cotillard and Charlotte Gainsbourg are two of my favorite actresses and the joy of seeing them together (and even confronting each other) in the same film was immense. Two more secondary roles caught my attention, giving László Szabó and Hippolyte Girardot consistent creations despite their short screen time. To me, 'Les fantomes d' Ismaël' seems to be an unfairly little watched, discussed and appreciated film.
Waste of time
What did I watch? What was it about? It's an incomprehensible, tiring mess, unbearably boring, especially towards the end. I wished I could see any meaning in this crap.
My vote: 1/10.
My vote: 1/10.