User Reviews (88)

Add a Review

  • I realized going into this film that it was not going to be a straight bio-pic about Rimbaud's life so that loosened my expectations for the movie a bit, which is good considering had I expected a life story I would've been sorely disappointed. This film is more about Rimbaud's rocky relationship with fellow poet, Verlaine, whom he falls in love with and subsequently about Verlaine being stuck between a rock and a hard place with Rimbaud on one side and his beautiful but ultimately empty headed wife, Mathilde on the other.

    The set/costume design was done well enough; not enough to win awards but enough to make the time and place believable. What stands out the most, though, is the acting and of course the wonderful violin heavy score. DiCaprio gives an inspired performance as the young, opinionated, Rimbaud as does Thewlis in his role as the older poet, Verlaine who takes him under his wing. You won't get a complete round view of either man or his life here, but what you will get is a story about love, madness, writing and the search for meaning.

    If you like what you see of Rimbaud from this movie, I would whole heartedly recommend his work to you and any and all written biographies as they will shed even more light on a truly great poet's life.
  • Of course there is pain and monstrosity in love. Two wild poets would need to live that out. But can a movie about it make any sense, without a fair portion of their poetry?

    Michelangelo said that painting excels when it approaches sculpture, and sculpture when it comes close to relief. An art form is enhanced when nearing its periphery, almost turning into another art form. Along this line, I am sure that the poetry of Rimbaud and Verlaine would have stood forward excellently, when recited in the movie about their relation. It would also have helped in making their interactions understandable.

    After seeing the movie a second time, I read some of Rimbaud's writings, and there was a slightly different character emerging from his words, than the one portrayed, though excellently, by Leonardo DiCaprio. Rimbaud's own words show that he was a victim just as much as a predator. Of course, he would say so, himself, but also: this modification would have made the movie rise beyond the black and white polarity it is too often caught in.

    Still, I enjoyed the movie tremendously, mostly thanks to Leo and the way he made his character fire up. He might have been type-cast, to do the obnoxious adolescent, but they got more than they bargained for - he included the most important aspect of Rimbaud: the prodigy poet, the artist living for art, loving for art.

    His acting is sometimes stunning, and not only in delicate scenes where minute nuances are essential, but also in all kinds of silliness in between. To hear him bark like a dog, really like a dog - did he do that himself, or was there an added sound effect? The pause, and the slightly humorous expression on his face, right before he tells his fellow poet that he expects more from him than his words. His posture and cocky moving about in the Paris of the noble poets, and his running on all four in the countryside. Brilliant acting.

    There's a lot of formidable acting also on behalf of the others in the cast, even when the script and the direction works against them. And it does, more than once. Maybe the plot got all confused, simply because the poetry of the poets was not taken into account.

    But a film gone awry can still be a wonderful experience. Frustrating, but wonderful. This one is.
  • This movie is not for the faint of heart or the conventional taste. It's not a fantasy.

    Like the real-life characters upon which the movie is based, TE is eccentric and poetical. French poet Rimbaud, who wrote almost everything he wrote as a teenager, has been admired by some of the most eccentric creative people of the last century. He was a very unusual teenager, being some kind of genius, some kind of lowlife, and a runaway. His poetry digs into and portrays life with discomforting and sometimes painful and sometimes ecstatic detail. His is the muse which revels in the squalor of creation.

    Many people will dislike this film because the two main characters, Rimbaud and Verlaine, are bisexual and not at all stereotypical. Both of them are snotty and selfish and violent and often despicable. (As Shakespeare probably was at times, but you'll never see him portrayed in movies that way.) These are not Robert Frost poets. These are worm and scat and sex and drug and rock'n'roll and get-down-and-get-dirty poets.

    Past that, it's the story of a great, if brief, flowering love ... the kind of love story you'd expect for people who live and breathe life in the way great alternaculture poets must.

    Eternity is where the sunlight mixes with the water. And the penetrating movie mixes with the prepared mind.
  • It's a good thing not too many people saw this film when it came out [no pun intended], because, if any of DiCaprio's female fans had seen him in this, one of his best early roles, his career would have been over well before he was involved in "Titanic." And that's because he's so utterly convincing as the tortured, bisexual teen genius poet Arthur Rimbaud, that it would undoubtedly set many of those young ladies to wondering if he'd played the part a little TOO well, if you get my meaning. If ever there was any such thing as a male femme fatale, It's Leo right here. Rumor has it that he tried to have the video pulled a few years ago, right after his "Titanic" success. It's a good thing he wasn't successful, because I think that this film rates right along with "The Basketball Diaries" as possibly his best performance.

    But it takes two to tango, at least in this case, and David Thewlis is almost as good opposite DiCaprio as Paul Verlaine, who began as Rimbaud's mentor and wound up as his long-time lover. As Verlaine was ugly and overweight, whereas Rimbaud was lithe and handsome, the two seemingly would have made an unbelieveably odd couple physically, but were drawn together more by their mutual likes and dislikes rather than physical attraction. And that's what you sense through all of their scenes together, a meeting of minds more than a meeting of bodies.

    There were many who praised this movie, there were many who hated it, but love it or hate it, it holds a strange fascination which makes you remember it long after you've seen it.
  • B2422 September 2004
    Genius is by nature sui generis. Most of us can only observe and wonder, and from time to time pretend we are similarly gifted. As for the actual behavior of genius, it almost always entails what is commonly known as bad manners.

    The other striking feature of genius, for some but not all, is what is commonly known as insanity. Although modern science has defined various types of mental disorder and found causes and cures for some of them, it really begs the question to try to judge character or morality on the basis of scientific data. Art lies after all outside the realm of science, and always will do.

    Having said that, I believe the film Total Eclipse must be reviewed or criticized solely on whether it is a good work of art. My opinion is that it succeeds at some levels, and fails at others.

    I accept that the writer and director knew exactly what they were doing at every step. Except for a few quibbles about editing, I agree that the artistic concept and the technique are first rate. The musical score is excellent. The camera angles are generally adept at conveying the actions and emotions of the cast. Outdoor scenes tend to be well conceived.

    Unfortunately, all that falls by the wayside because of flaws in relating the story accurately and well to its origins. Anyone familiar with the lives and work of Verlaine and Rimbaud can only cringe at the superficiality of this film. As many others have pointed out, scant attention is paid to verse, and then only in a language -- English -- that only approximates the original. It would have been a graceful beginning to make this film in France with French characters speaking French, then allowing the subtitles to fill in the gaps for non-French-speaking viewers.

    What that conclusion implies, of course, is that the primary cast is wrong for this film. I really hate to say that, because DiCaprio and Thewlis are great actors doing the best they can to carry the film forward. Although I would have picked a different physical specimen for the role of Verlaine (for some odd reason the face of the late German director Fassbinder comes to mind), the choice of an androgyne for Rimbaud was physically right on target.

    Finally, I am appalled at some of the comments here that betray a preoccupation with sex. "Zany" is the only word one can apply to subjective and even judgmental interpretations of this film about this or that scene or bit of action not in accord with a viewer's personal sexual expectations. My own view is that this was, if anything, a highly bowdlerized adaptation of reality.

    In short, recast this in French, and focus more on the full text of Rimbaud's genius.
  • gavin694229 December 2015
    Young, wild poet Arthur Rimbaud (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his mentor Paul Verlaine (David Thewlis) engage in a fierce, forbidden romance while feeling the effects of a hellish artistic lifestyle.

    Whether the main characters in this film are homosexual, bisexual or something else does not matter. That is part of the beauty of the way the subject matter is approached: we are not to think of these two as anything other than two passionate, and sometimes crazy, lovers... what the courts thought of them is beside the point.

    And it is a great story. I concede I know nothing of Rimbaud or Verlaine. I believe they were the subject of the German film "Michael", though I may be mistaken (and even then the names were changed). But it seems it is not important to even know them... this is what it is like to be in a passionate and destructive relationship. Is it beautiful or terrifying? Certainly it helps produce great art, but at what cost?
  • I revised my evaluation of this movie after almost five years of watching at least once every 8-10 months. I am deep lover of Rimbaud's poetry and of his character as a whole as a matter of fact. When I watched it the first time I probably had the typical gay teenagers' fascination towards the relationship that is depicted and the great performance by Di Caprio in interpreting probably the most difficult role he will ever interpret. The storytelling, direction and everything around it is so poor is almost embarrassing and the only reason this movie is getting a mere 6 (it should have gotten far worse) is the outstanding performance from Di Caprio that manages to link himself permanently to Rimbaud's figure. Everything should have been much more developed, the movie feels almost like the script was left at the first draft and never revised it. Hopefully someone else will try in the path of making some good movie Rimbaud-centred and hopefully someone will be as good as Di Caprio was in portraying him.
  • The thing is, my first intention of watching this movie was to see young DiCaprio for he was my childhood crush. But because it was so difficult to get at the time, then I started to look up about Arthur Rimbaud to know if aside young DiCaprio, it will be interesting to watch. Then boom! I fell madly in love with Rimbaud. He was a very interesting figure to me. He started out as a shy boy who was obedient to every thing his mother told him and ended up as rebel kid who changed the face of literature forever--one of the founding fathers of modern poetry--one of the literary heroes. I forgot my intention to watch young DiCaprio; I watched it to see how Rimbaud's incredible life being portrayed in a movie. I expected this movie to make me drown in tears (I'm very crier when it comes to movies) but no. Instead I was disappointed. Here Rimbaud was portrayed as a stupid brat who can't do better but pissing on another poet from a great height. Total Eclipse is neither a biographical nor art movie. It's a gay movie pretending to be art movie by hiding under the armpits of two brilliant poets. Not that I have problem with gays, but watching this movie will make us wonder why Rimbaud and Verlaine are so important that Hollywood bothers to make a movie about them. Rimbaud and Verlaine before anything else are two of greatest poets in history, but there is no evidence about it here. Here they exaggerate both poets' obnoxiousness. Not even a bit of their genius was shown. There is a funny scene where Rimbaud and Verlaine were in a poet meeting and a poet was "interested" in Rimbaud's poetry but Verlaine butted in and say, "he doesn't like discussing his poetry". Well, the real Rimbaud would be more than happy to discuss his poetry. I wonder if the scriptwriter(s) were too smart to picture about how Rimbaud discussing his poetry with prominent poets in a poet meeting. Another scene: when Rimbaud first arrived in Maute de Fleurville's house, he was very rude and arrogant. In reality, Rimbaud was very shy and nervous that he didn't say a word during dinner until Verlaine "saved" him by taking him into his room. Also, where did the filmmaker(s) get the "fact" that Rimbaud encouraging Verlaine to shoot him by swaying his hand in the air like an asshole? There are still other inaccurate scenes but I chose not to talk about it further. It made me laugh to read there is someone here who wrote that after watching this movie he refused to read anything from Rimbaud anymore. Lol, I doubt he even read Rimbaud. There is also someone who wrote that with the kind of behavior that she saw in this movie, Rimbaud deserves to be forgotten. Judging someone so legendary based on a movie that didn't even receive good reviews shows how shallow you are as a person. If you can't judge a book by its movie, you can't judge a public figure by its movie either. Better read his biography. From Graham Robb I will suggest the most. Of course it's a very long biography for people who dislike reading and prefer to judge a literary hero by a silly movie who was banned from the theaters not even a week after its release. But for those who don't mind reading hundreds pages of book, this biography by Graham Robb will help you to know why Rimbaud is so important. Anyways, Rimbaud and Verlaine created one of the greatest love stories. Total Eclipse actually has some good scenes regarding this affair, the problem is when I watch this movie from the start to ending I will be nothing but annoyed. Those scenes can be good only if I watch them alone, you know, without having to watch the movie in a whole. Why I didn't rate it lower? The answer is somehow I still owe this movie because I discovered Rimbaud for the first time from it. And I appreciate both DiCaprio's and Thewlis performance for Rimbaud and Verlaine are very difficult role to play.
  • Total Eclipse is the story of the relationship between two men who definitely made their mark on French literature. Poets Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud have been compared to Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, but aside from being gay the pairs have little in common. Wilde is a universally recognized talent who had the misfortune to fall in love with a spoiled young aristocrat in Douglas who had some pretenses to literary talent. Douglas was spoiled, but both he and Wilde conducted themselves well in public.

    Verlaine and Rimbaud were a pair of talented louts as Total Eclipse shows us in graphic detail. Wilde married for convention's sake at the time and did have two sons and was a loving husband. His is a Victorian Brokeback Mountain story. Verlaine was a drunk and an abusive husband who regularly beat on his wife and child who was totally fascinated by young Rimbaud. He was ten years older than Rimbaud in real life, the film does make him seem a great deal older. He did read some of Rimbaud's work as a teenage prodigy and sent for the country lad. You can feel sorry for Wilde and do in the films that tell his story. Verlaine as played by David Thewlis is a really hateful person, gay audiences can't work up any sympathy for him.

    However Rimbaud as played by Leonardo DiCaprio by look and talent makes you perfectly understand why Rimbaud became so obsessed with him. Verlaine was a political man, he was a supporter of the Paris Commune and was in fear of the police who would have loved to nail him on a morals charge if not on a political one. Rimbaud didn't have a political opinion in the world, he was a peasant kid from the Ardennes who partied hardy, drove Verlaine crazy and jealous, but both learned and fed off each other artistically. I found it interesting that Rimbaud and Verlaine flee to Great Britain of all places to be freer, the same place that in the next generation would persecute poor Oscar Wilde.

    DiCaprio and Thewlis play a couple of louts, but a fascinating pair of louts. Total Eclipse has both these guys eclipsing the supporting cast around them, that probably is the main weakness of the film. Still fans of both men shouldn't miss this film.
  • Kestrel-324 October 1998
    A lot of people may be tempted to watch this one for the Leonardo DiCaprio nude scenes, but David Thewlis gives a terrific performance as well in this story about the absinthe-soaked love affair between French poets Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine. Interesting insight into "creative" process that plagues the artistic
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Arthur is a cocky teen who's in-your-face poetry has caught the eye of Paul, a traditional French poet. When Arthur is invited to Paul's home to meet his family, they are shocked at the belching, thieving, insulting, insanity that is Arthur Rimbaud. However, Paul is enlivened by him and puts him up. Arthur shows no gratitude and makes a public spectacle by climbing to the roof stark naked and throwing his clothing into the street. Oddly, Paul is enchanted with Arthur's wild and unpredictable nature. They begin an oddly matched homosexual relationship over flowing with absinthe, violence, obscenity and even more insanity. They travel, urinate on other poet's works, eat hay from fields, beat each other, hate each other, love each other and eventually someone is shot. The movie is choppy, understandably jumping from scene to scene as the film is based on letters they exchanged. It's a bit hard to follow and a bumpy ride, and definitely a movie you'll love to hate.
  • This is a worthy and successful attempt to make a film about the famous literary and personal relationship between two great poets, Paul Verlaine and the young Arthur Rimbaud. How the French must have resented its being made in English! (But why did the French themselves never film this story, which is so fundamental to the mythology of their literature?) There is no use viewers and reviewers complaining that the characters are disgusting: everybody knows they were, and they would have been the first to admit it. This film has not been made for the wrong reasons, with fictional characters, but is a true story. It is rather disturbing to realize that absinthe has been legalised again and people are drinking it once more, when we see how it drove these two poets insane, which is what is really does, you know! The banning of absinthe should never have been lifted. It may be a pretty green colour, but it is not romantic or at all glamorous. One strange omission from this film is any of the poetry of either poet! Very few decent translations of Verlaine into English exist, because he used rhyme so much. But he was a great and soaring poet, and of course Rimbaud shattered all the moulds and basically founded modern poetry, and had the status of a god to the Surrealists. So it would have been good to hear some of their work, especially as it is all out of copyright and no one could have objected. The lack of the poetry stops people who do not already know it from appreciating the point of all this carrying-on. Verlaine and Rimbaud were appalling, violent, disorderly, and to call them extreme Bohemians doesn't go far enough: they were both quite mad as well. But then, many poets are, and often the finest poetry comes from the ones who are the craziest (David Gascoyne, whom I knew well, is an example, and Ezra Pound whom I knew less well was not what you could call well-balanced). It is often said that there is a fine line between genius and madness, but with poets, the situation is even more dire: to be a divinely inspired poet it seems that it is almost a requirement that you first lose your mind. (Exceptions are those with no fire in their temperament at all: Eliot, Perse, Valery, or those who have become spiritual beings while still on earth, such as Rilke.) Well, the performances and direction are excellent here. Agnieszka Holland is an inspired director, a protégé of Wajda, and perhaps her greatest achievement was 'Washington Square' (1997). She is interested in art, not commerce, and congratulations to her for that! The young Leonardo Di Caprio, aged 20, was a scintillating, wild, and wholly convincing Rimbaud. You could believe every scene. David Thewlis was equally convincing as Verlaine, despite being rather too thin for the part (Verlaine was stockier and plumper, and Thewlis looks like he hasn't had a decent meal for ten years). Romane Bohringer was an excellent choice for Verlaine's wife, and plays it just right. The next year she would make her staggering pair of films, 'L'Appartement' and 'Portraits Chinois', in both of which she sets the cinema on fire. So the talent is there, and the film is delivered. If we find these people disturbing, it is because they were. But without this bizarre tale, twentieth century poetry would not have come into existence, because it was created by Arthur Rimbaud, and without Verlaine taking him under his wing it would never have happened. Christopher Hampton's screenplay is intelligent and thoughtful and well-crafted throughout. But then, that is what he does. It is good to have this on the screen, but for those who do not already know the story, it must be a real shocker. It is also not a film for 'homophobes', and if you don't want to see Leonard Di Caprio kissing a man on the mouth, look away now.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    #11 Total Eclipse

    Paul Verlaine = The Frustrated Character

    Pros: First of all, I want to mention that although this film deals with a somewhat morbid topic at no time does the film fall into a banal theme, Agnieszka Holland is a director who has made charming films and takes things seriously, the story is well maintained and offers a homosexual theme in the best possible way, David is Verlaine a bisexual poet who falls in love with another poet younger than the so-called Rimbaud (Di Caprio), we are told the stormy life he has following this event. There are some really beautiful footage filmed and so well done by her that it feels taken care of (such as shots, locations, photography), for example when Paul goes to jail, the truth in the way he narrates this fact and captures it so well that he really looks sad to look at; all these moments are not impossible to appreciate and the end of the film is so artistic, that I leave myself to meditate for several days on it, David creates a great character! A really solid one.

    Cons: It will be hard to talk about negative things, so... here we go: Honestly I'm not a big fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, I respect him as an actor but as a person... not so much, seeing Arthur Rimbaud and his behavior in the film is sometimes annoying, during all the time I saw this film I think in my head: Why does Paul Verlaine have a certain mania for this guy?..., I feel that the script is a little disorienting in some respects because almost after the first 60 minutes it becomes tense to look and appreciate. Seeing both of them (David and Leonardo) for a long time tires me a little and I feel them too monotonous.
  • In concept and execution, Total Eclipse is flawed. It is not a biopic, but a snapshot of the affair between Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine. For the artistically minded to question love and the insanity of genius, and not to follow the significant footsteps of the bohemian poets. However, it fails due to a kind of Americanisation of period costume drama. There is a mishmash of accents (American, British, French) undermining the nuance of the French tongue. I still can't understand why trained actors don't seem to have even a basic grasp of high school French, or why the producers and the director were scared of subtitles in an 'Art house' film. It's difficult to buy DiCaprio as Rimbaud (although in appearance he is well cast) as with an American accent he always seems obnoxious even when it is not his intention. Delivering fragments of Rimbaud's poems and philosophy in sound bites renders them hollow. Although he is aesthetically and historically on the mark, the tone and spirit of the portrayal is completely wrong.

    Another conceit is that this film marginalises Verlaine. The opening interstitial might as well read "Verlaine's poems were OK, but who cares?" Arthur was known to have an admiration for Verlaine long before the two met, and the love between them genuine. Here though, it is painted as a vampiric relationship of convenience. Paul clinging to Arthur for fear of being alone, Arthur bleeding Paul's influence and money dry.

    Hackneyed scenes of Rimbaud having 'visions' of the final years of his life had me gagging, and are inexcusable. The editing of the entire piece is atrocious, particularly Paul's trial. And there are inaccuracies for the sake of ludicrous symbolism. Verlaine shot Rimbaud in the wrist. Though as it is portrayed here, he is shot through the center of his hand, to tack on a gauche Christ metaphor. You are never assimilated into the world these people live in because of the accent problem, and the energies of every cast member shooting off in different directions. Making the effort, you will find yourself wanting to like this film more than it will allow you to. The intention is to make you cry at the end, as other critics attest, but I fail to see how.

    Total Eclipse tried very hard to alienate its audience, the problem is that it has largely succeeded. It sours the romantic notion of Rimbaud and Verlaine for those familiar with their work, and has the unfamiliar asking basic straightforward questions which it makes no attempt to answer. "Why would Verlaine keep putting up with Rimbaud's abuse", "Why was Rimbaud considered a genius? He seemed like an arsehole".
  • This art-house film is not a crowd-pleaser but is nevertheless an excellent film. It is one of DiCaprio's best independent films before he became a titanic superstar.

    Rimbaud"s painfully self-destructive bisexual life and his affair with Verlaine is not a "nice" story to tell, but the drama is interesting as a study in the eccentric mind of the artist. Beneath the plot is the age-old question of whether the artist's oddness hinders his creativity or is actually the fuel for his art.
  • A fascinating movie about two of the greatest French poets ever, accomplished with all the dedication of two high talented leading actors : the Italian-German rooted American Leonardo Di Caprio (Titanic) and the British David Thewlis (Seven years in Tibet).

    Nevertheless, what a disappointment that a European produced movie about French poets is brought in the English language. In the same way Rimbaud's beautifull rebellious and renovating poetry is translated in English : almost hilarious if it weren't so sad. Was this violation of French poetry really necessary to introduce French literature to a big audience ? It fails on this point. With up-to-date technology of DVD's this shouldn't happen anymore. Nowadays such a film could very decently and correctly be written and performed in the adjusted language - in this case French - and given the extra feature of an English spoken or subtitled version for those who fail the knowledge of the original language. The wrong language was - luckily - the only, but serious let-down of the film.

    The story itself is well told, acted and directed. It is about a literary genius blooming in the absolute freedom of youth - not restricted by any social rule. It is a compliment to the makers that the film breathes the same freedom of mind. It is in this sense clearly a European and not an American (moral majority) film.

    Between his 16 - when he left home and joined Verlaine (Thewlis) - and his 19, Rimbaud (Di Caprio) wrote the fine flower of French poetry. As youth goes by and the love-hate relationship with Verlaine escalates (?), vanishes (?), explodes (?), implodes (?) (find out yourself) ... Rimbaud seems to outgrow or abandon his own gift.

    The movie tries to give a strong impression of a young man with talents so great and powerfull, burning in his head so violently that it was a real struggle for him finding the right words to express them. Although both characters evolve during the whole story, the movie starts with Verlaine in the main role. Than Rimbaud takes over Verlaine's life and the leading part. Verlaine is taking over again in the last sequences. You get the impression that Verlaine's character was meant leading all the way, but both Di Caprio's and Rimbaud's gifts and energy are so powerfull that they take over the central part of the story. Good casting. Similarities between character and actor shine through, but Di Caprio is not gay.

    It is hardly known that Rimbaud still lived another 10 year or so after his turbulent and talented youth. Little is known and one may wonder about it. What is the role of his sister in this ?

    When the movie is over, questions rise. Did Rimbaud's talent disappear ? So hard to believe. Was Verlaine his mentor or was Rimbaud just parasitizing on him ? Why did Rimbaud never again write anything ? Or did he, and what happened with it ? It is good to see an movie that leaves you with questions and wondering. Why ?... Quote : 7/10
  • It's a personal influence of mine of course, but it was still not impressive, chaotic and predictable,but that's the life of the not understood artist. It's not my cup of tea, the actors were great of course, but the story not so much. Too less about creating art, too much about childish and abusive behaviors.
  • The movie stays on the friendship and love between Verlaine and Rimbaud and doesn't focus at the artistic nature of those two great french poets. The scenario is based on the letters the 2 poets sent to each other. Yorgos Arvanitis cinematography gives a dark atmosphere that surrounds the heroes. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a passionate performance in a role that his managers suggested him to reject. 7/10 by me.
  • Leonardo gives the performance of homophobic homosexual. The love scenes were stomach churning and painful. Half the time you wonder if he was bucking a bull. His character doesn't even touch the point of genius, just that of an egotistical brat. The movie was dark and boring. The characters were hideously filthy and insulting, dirty and selfish and should have bloody drowned in the sea they were so desperately hunting in their mad frenzied expedition. Sure, genius does touch insanity. But such intellectualism should not bestow poignant stupidity.
  • Though this film is "loosely" based on true events, it still strikes me as being one of Dicaprio's best. Not to mention the seamless performance by David Thewles. After seeing this film, I decided that Leo should Stay far far away from the Hollywood machine. His best work by far is of independent flair. I gave this picture a 9 because I found the story of two writers (poets) to be one of mutual love and abuse, and very engrossing. I would recommend this film for anyone, especially those fans of Dicaprio who have only seen the likes of Titanic and The Man With the Iron Mask. This story has much more to offer.
  • In this very grim portrayal of the love affair between 19th century French poets Arthur Rimbaud (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Paul Verlaine (David Thewlis), we see how they in fact had a mutually destructive relationship. The movie really makes you feel like you're rubbing your face against sandpaper. You're not sure whether you want to sympathize with Rimbaud or find him unpleasant, but Verlaine is a real creep, often abusing his wife.

    Overall, this isn't a great movie, but worth seeing. If nothing else, it's a look at a certain part of literary history, but also of the most despicable kind of relationship possible. So if you do plan to see it, just be forewarned that it will probably make your stomach turn.
  • jonathanruano7 February 2010
    On the surface, one would think that "Total Eclipse" would work as a film. A young and very gifted poet Arthur Rimbaud (played by Leonardo Di Caprio who looks the part, but cannot quite play it) is invited to Paris by Verlaine (Thewlis) and they become lovers and work together on some of the most revolutionary verse the literary world has ever known.

    Yet the problem with "Total Eclipse," from acclaimed Polish film-maker Agniezka Holland, is that its focus is all wrong. What makes Arthur Rimbaud and Verlaine fascinating are not their personalities, but their poetry. If the film focused on that, then it probably would have worked. Instead, this film narrate Rimbaud and Verlaine's cruelty at the expense of their literary contributions. This unpleasantly sadistic dynamic sometimes leads to some of the most lively and inspired scenes, such as when Verlaine ditches his wife and her mother at the train car and escapes with Arthur Rimbaud. But more often than not, Rimbaud and Verlaine come across as obnoxious bores. Since the victims of their malice are usually nice people, it becomes even harder to like or understand Rimbaud or Verlaine.

    Some might defend this picture by saying that Rimbaud and Verlaine were living life to the fullest. But living life to its fullest is not particularly thrilling, when it involves Rimbaud stabbing Verlaine's palm; Verlaine beating his pregnant wife and setting her hair on fire; and Rimbaud belching endlessly. If Holland is going to make a good film on this theme, then why not take two flamboyant people (like Rimbaud and Verlaine) and send them to Africa or another colourful part of the world where they can incorporate their life experiences into their poetry. That would be a more interesting film. Unfortunately, we get all this unpleasantness instead.
  • First off, this movie definitely deserves it's 'R' rating. So if you're a young Leo fan, don't bother. You're too young to see it and far too young to understand it.

    Onto the review. I was deeply moved by this movie. I thought Leo DiCaprio (who I usually despise) was excellent in his role. He played the part of bisexual Arthur Rimbaud very well. Very believable. David Thewlis' role was also very well acted (and quite impressive) as Paul Verlaine.

    Most have said it's not an accurate portrayal of what really went on....well that's what the disclaimer on the beginning of the movie states. If you missed it, don't complain.

    Basically, it will move you (unless you have no emotion at all), make you think, and perhaps shock you a bit (mainly Paul's behavior toward his wife was a bit shocking). But it is a beautifully artistic film and I urge fans of this genre to experience it.
  • Pat-5418 December 1998
    The reason this film failed was the fact that both main characters are despicable. You care about no one in the film and when the story concludes, you breathe a sigh of relief.
  • lib-46 July 1999
    Many years ago I read Day on Fire by James Ramsey Ullman and became fascinated with Rimbaud. Four year of high school and college French enabled me to read his writings in French. This movie doesn't come close to expressing the passion that Rimbaud put into his poetry. And Dicaprio is no Rimbaud-- his so called acting doesn't do justice to the Rimbaud I studied intensely.

    The actor who portrayed Verlaine is closer in temperament to the character-- but altogether this movie is a slanted look at the tempestuous affair between two noted poets. C-
An error has occured. Please try again.