When you have Antony Hopkins in the lead of a movie you maybe expect too much - especially as he looks so much like the real Picasso on the film poster. Sadly the promise is not fulfilled as we learn nothing; and worse the low budget limits where the camera can wander - or maybe too much was spent on getting lead Hopkins?
The film is tied to a very minor version of his life story, and worse, the estate having pulled-down-the-shutters on the project - leaving us with only half completed sketches and cod paintings from which we are supposed to get the gist of the maestro.
Although well enough done to give us an insight in to style and purpose we are getting short changed, like a Beatles bio-film where the actors don't sing real Lennon and McCartney numbers but pastiche versions.
Yes the artist took art forward, but his work is more imagination than technique. He was a factory artist (his slapdash ten minute wonders litter the wall of many of the new rich) and don't tell me all his work was good or original- a lot of samey-samey abstract pictures of women.
The central problem is that Hopkins is a lovely person and Picasso was not. While on-the-ball when he plays the strong, manipulating and selfish man (these are on-tap devices for a real stage actor), he weakens when trying to be nice or light-hearted. His "let's still be friends" is too soft and reasonable for a man whose whole life was dedicated to self pleasure and self gratification. I don't believe he was ever nice in that English gentleman sense, only in that car salesman way of being nice to get what they want. The kind that turns nasty when rebuked.
Female lead McElhone (playing Francoise Gilot) hasn't a clue what to do with her lover/student/child bearer character. It is a role of long face pulling, but at least she has a lovely long face to do it with.
She either doesn't believe in her character or refuses to play weak, which she must have been to put up with what we see here. More a groupie than a student. Or maybe - more accurately - one of these honouree servants that only the rich and famous can have. Talented as an artist? - couldn't tell you from watching this film!
This product is actually not that bad, but it was a story that wanted everything going for it to have a sporting chance of success. Having a class A actor in the lead doesn't make up for the faults of budget and access to the artist's real work. A bland piece of work that might have dashed any chance to make a proper fist of the job for a generation or two.
The film is tied to a very minor version of his life story, and worse, the estate having pulled-down-the-shutters on the project - leaving us with only half completed sketches and cod paintings from which we are supposed to get the gist of the maestro.
Although well enough done to give us an insight in to style and purpose we are getting short changed, like a Beatles bio-film where the actors don't sing real Lennon and McCartney numbers but pastiche versions.
Yes the artist took art forward, but his work is more imagination than technique. He was a factory artist (his slapdash ten minute wonders litter the wall of many of the new rich) and don't tell me all his work was good or original- a lot of samey-samey abstract pictures of women.
The central problem is that Hopkins is a lovely person and Picasso was not. While on-the-ball when he plays the strong, manipulating and selfish man (these are on-tap devices for a real stage actor), he weakens when trying to be nice or light-hearted. His "let's still be friends" is too soft and reasonable for a man whose whole life was dedicated to self pleasure and self gratification. I don't believe he was ever nice in that English gentleman sense, only in that car salesman way of being nice to get what they want. The kind that turns nasty when rebuked.
Female lead McElhone (playing Francoise Gilot) hasn't a clue what to do with her lover/student/child bearer character. It is a role of long face pulling, but at least she has a lovely long face to do it with.
She either doesn't believe in her character or refuses to play weak, which she must have been to put up with what we see here. More a groupie than a student. Or maybe - more accurately - one of these honouree servants that only the rich and famous can have. Talented as an artist? - couldn't tell you from watching this film!
This product is actually not that bad, but it was a story that wanted everything going for it to have a sporting chance of success. Having a class A actor in the lead doesn't make up for the faults of budget and access to the artist's real work. A bland piece of work that might have dashed any chance to make a proper fist of the job for a generation or two.