Surviving Picasso (1996) User Reviews (27)

Portrait of the Artist as a Monster

[Geofbob · 7/10 · 25 April 2001]

It's a pity that many of the user comments on this movie are simply a vehicle for people's dislike of Picasso, and that they treat the film as though it were a documentary. Picasso may have been as sex-mad, egocentric, paranoid and capricious as any Hollywood star (think Chaplin); but first and foremost he was a prodigious artist, who transformed our view of visual art, and dealt with some of the great themes of western culture. And presumably it was those latter qualities which drew women to him, in the same way that women have been drawn to successful, powerful men of dubious character since the dawn of time.

The movie and Hopkins' performance are certainly successful in displaying Picasso's human weaknesses; but there is a failure to adequately convey Picasso's enormous creative power, a weakness compounded by the fact that the makers were not allowed to use much of his work in the film. I see the film as a well made, excellently acted, but partial (in both senses of the word) portrait of the artist. Its real focus is the women in his life, especially Francoise Gilot, and on the two-way exploitative nature of the relationship between a man of this kind and his mistresses/wives.

Major acting talent at work - but sheds no light or insight whatsoever

[Pedro_H · 6/10 · 16 January 2004]

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.

Most people can distinguish between good and evil. Picasso lacked that quality

[macpherr · 5/10 · 31 March 1999]

There are certain stories that are better if they remained untold. As a matter of personal taste I do not like Picasso's work. When saw the title, I purchased the video because I wanted to see who was the person behind the scribbles? Also because I always question why some good painters are unknown and will always be unknown and others achieve worldwide acclaim so undeservingly. This movie has good acting, by Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs) and Natasha McElhone (The Truman Show) and all the other actors are good. The story is well told. I just dislike Picasso very much. He treated all the women in his life like dirt. They all put up with him! They had low self-esteem and he destroyed the little they had left. The most amazing thing is that he had a wife and about five mistresses, and every place he went they all went, and put up with his mistreatment. The ambiguous man did not believe in God but kept all his hair and finger nails wrapped and dated, and kept by one of his mistresses because he was afraid of Black Magic! Picasso himself as a human being had no redeeming qualities.

While Françoise was pregnant with Paloma Picasso, he left for Poland for three weeks but remained in Poland for about four months. Every day Françoise would receive a telegram saying: Hugs and Kisses! I guess that where the famous Paloma Picasso (jewelry designer) got the idea for her famous design of hugs and kisses. The telegrams were not even sent by Picasso. The women who were involved with Picasso: One would get a sharp pointed knife and stab her hand with it and laugh while she bleeds. His wife became a crazy vagrant, who went around cursing him. Nobody was normal except Françoise, who almost lost her identity. His older son became Picassos' chauffeur because Picasso kept telling him that he was not good for anything. Françoise survived by leaving him after ten years. I would not have stayed with that man even for a day! In sum: this is a story about a jerk! Humans have somewhat an inborn desire to be good. Maybe I am naive! Most people can distinguish between good and evil. Picasso lacked that quality. I do not recommend this movie because the main character lack's morality and the core of the story has no social value, as most characters in the story allow themselves to be used to exploit the financial side of the name Picasso. This movie is about the use of someone's likeness for financial gain!

A revealing character study

[philipmorrison · 1 November 1999]

I liked this movie quite a bit. It is not a very flattering portrait of the master, but it gives one insight into his art. Anthony Hopkins gives a convincing portrayal of the bad and the good qualities of the man. He had a charming playfulness about him which the women in his life fell for despite themselves and the knowledge of his reputation. Of course, his dark side was his maniacal desire for control of his women's lives, even after the romantic sides of their relationship had long since died. My question about those women is why they went out of their way to get into a relationship with him, knowing he had already ruined the lives of others. Francoise, the main character, thought herself strong enough to stave off any emotional harm he could do her, but when you get into a romantic relationship with someone, your reason disappears. Nobody's strong enough to not be hurt by someone they are emotionally involved with. The trick is to meet only the people who you feel reasonably sure will not do you harm. One would think an intelligent woman like Francoise would know that. If this were a piece of fiction, I would find it hard to believe, but given that the movie is based on fact.... This knowledge added a great deal to the intrigue of the movie, and a great deal of depth to the characters.

The acting is first-rate. I've seen a few of the other movies in which Natascha McElHone has acted, but those parts were not large enough to show her range. I was extremely impressed. She has a very expressive face, capable of portraying an entire pallet of emotions, and, most importantly, she is obviously an intelligent woman, capable of convincingly playing an intellectual. Of course, the fact that she is elegantly drop-dead gorgeous has not colored my emotions about her performance one bit.

Hopkins as usual does a brilliant job. I have never seen him express ebullience as he does here. He does a good job of showing how charming Picasso could be, supplying some motivation for why women fell for him, knowing his infamous past.

Seeing this movie lent new meaning to some of his paintings which I have seen recently. There is a portrait of Dorra Marr (sp?) in the Belissario Hotel in Las Vegas. One half of it portrays a happy woman, the other half is tinged with sadness. I now know the story behind this painting, making it all the more memorable. Like the first reviewer, I'm not a big fan of Picasso, but knowing what lies behind some of his paintings will add interest in the future.

great actor, not that great movie

[Mickey Knox · 6/10 · 15 January 2001]

A closer look at the controversial life of world famous painter Picasso. A guy who's only intentions are women - a guy to whom marriage doesn't mean anything. The movie isn't too great at all. Actually many times it's boring. But there's a good reason to watch it: Anthony Hopkins, one of the greatest actors alive. Vote: 6 out of 10.

Cinema Omnivore - Surviving Picasso (1996) 7.2/10

[lasttimeisaw · 7/10 · 9 November 2023]

"How much has Françoise gained from Picasso, career-wise, is left untapped in SURVIVING PICASSO, there is mentioning of promoting her works in passing, but the toil of unconditionally subsuming herself into his life raises a red flag for all comers. Picasso is unqualifiedly self-centered, his needs and whims are of utmost primacy. Perpetually, Françoise's life must be orbited around his and she should always be at the beck and call of his dictates, and that doesn't mean she is enough for him. Picasso is always on the lookout for new muses in the name of inspiration, that could leave those women with a permanent scar, like his first wife Olga Khokhlova (Lapotaire), a member of the looney tunes, or an embittered Dora Maar (Moore, sporting an Eastern European accent standoffishly and fiddling with mumblety-peg manically); then there is Marie-Thérèse Walter (Harker), who is able to keep her marbles, yet still pointedly proprietorial when she sees a newcomer getting his favor."

-

A Difficult Man

[operamask · 8/10 · 11 June 2005]

The movie is about Francoise Gilot, not about Picasso. It is not intended to tell Picasso's story. Picasso was brilliant, spectacular, the living center of the world of art and a sexual magnet. Women wanted him and, king that he was, Picasso viewed their adoration as no more than his due.

Francoise Gilot, a talented painter in her own right - but no Picasso - lives for ten years a life which for her is absolutely worth the pain. And when the pain is so grave that she will surely be overwhelmed, she stands up and leaves. The pain doesn't go away instantly, but it does go away, in time.

In one memorable scene, Gilot, at home with the baby, questions Picasso's absences, his obvious womanizing. He tells her in no uncertain terms that he will do as he chooses, that his life outside their home is none of her business. She has no right to question him. He doesn't say, "Take it or leave it," but that is the unmistakable message. She takes it, for a few more years, and another child.

It would be interesting to know whether Gilot, who was born in 1921 and is apparently still with us, harbors regret. I cannot imagine that she does. Of course she would have enjoyed that ten years better if Picasso had been able to love, in some recognizable way. But would she trade that life for one less magnificent? For one that would not be a good movie? Hardly.

The acting is of course perfect. Anthony Hopkins becomes the man Picasso. Natascha McElhone, Julianne Moore and Susanna Harker tell us the truth. Well paced, finely directed, this movie tells a riveting story. It is very, very good.

It is perhaps worthy of note that many of the negative reviews of this movie are written by men. Picasso was not just difficult; he was a Difficult Man.

Even Hopkins Can't Save It

[KingProjector93 · 4/10 · 23 February 2019]

Period drama masters Merchant Ivory tackle one of Spain's most iconic artists, or rather, his love life. Francoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone) becomes eloped with the eccentric painter (Anthony Hopkins) during WW2, and the film follows the highs and lows of said relationship as she goes from wide eyed girl to lover to mother of the hot blooded artist's kids.

James Ivory's biopic of Picasso's premiere mistress does have good performances, even if the usually great Hopkins, disappointingly, never fully transforms into the legendary painter and so instead, the film ends up being carried by McElhone as a sympathetic yet ultimately frustrated and abused woman. There are also some welcome moments of humour, usually via Picasso's rather upfront comments & observations about others, and even some inventive flashback sequences that take on Picasso-esque aesthetics with very Cubist rooms and characters.

However, the screenplay never really explores why Gilot or the other women are drawn to and stay with Picasso, despite his duplicitous nature and often angry temperament. The film paints him (hah) as a genius, but also as kind of shameless and a bit of a manbaby, but the why, fame aside, is never looked at in any meaningful way. It's very much the token 'well, it happened in real life, so it's here' card of lazy biopics. Hopkins being given a two-dimensional Picasso doesn't help.

Furthermore, Picasso's art never gets much attention nor examination, missing a great opportunity for parallels and psychological exploration of our leads. This is an unbelievable blunder if you're going to even bother making a film on the man in the first place, as there's a lot of rich subtext to mine and would've helped with defining more of Picasso and his appeal.

Unless you're a Merchant ivory completionist, stick with Remains of The Day.

Expertly Crafted and Worth Your Time!

[backbaybos · 10/10 · 12 February 2014]

I saw this film initially in 1996. I remember having to work in the morning and had a few hours to kill in the afternoon. I decided to give it a try, because it starred Anthony Hopkins and I'm a fan. Being a Merchant Ivory film I thought it was going to be boring. It wasn't. It held my interest until the ending credits. I sat amazed when it was finished....just processing what I had just witnessed.

Pablo Picasso has to be one of the most complex of human beings ever. Surviving Picasso chronicles his love affair with Françoise Gilot. He spent from 1944 to 1953 with her, and fathered two of her children, but wouldn't marry her. Gilot is realistically played by Natascha McElhone. We get to see how difficult Picasso was to live with. Anthony Hopkins plays an emotionally weak, yet tyrannical genius. Literally, holding this young woman hostage. He was the father of her children, but never gave her any monetary compensation to raise those kids. She had to depend upon the kindness of her grandmother.

Of all of his women, we start to see that she alone understood his weaknesses. I got the impression that out of all of the women he was involved with, she probably loved him the most. He knew this and used this to hold her his emotional prisoner.

Surviving Picasso is not an easy film to sit through. You begin to hate Picasso for manipulating everyone he comes in contact with. My thought was that he was a spoiled child that never grew up. He relished when his women fought over him, pined over him, and even did desperate things to show him how much they loved him. Yet, he didn't seem to appreciate any of their efforts.

I was totally drawn into this film and think one needs to give it a chance. It's a thinking person's film. The character development is complex, but you begin to have sympathy for the victims of this madman.

Failed - not feminist - viewpoint disappointment.

[Bofsensai · 3/10 · 24 August 2016]

Another film found in a throwaway collection for me, so why add in this review? Because if you're a Merchant Ivory sumptuous depictions fan, to warn, I felt this one was a letdown:

In the art of film, well, nice sun washed colours throughout - except at beginning introduced at the tail end of the second world war just before Picasso meets Gilot, which is the inspiration for the film - and plus a couple of nice crane shots, one in this context, at the beginning. But even here, having begun showing Picasso as more or less darling of the occupying German invaders, no follow up so as to make relevant why this might have been so of him: it merely serves to introduce his fourth major lover, on whom regular screenwriter collaborator, R.P. Jhabvala, has adapted Ariana Huffington's source novel - and that (presumably) on her - lover, F. Gilot's - memoirs: and that is where the major disappointment arises in that for such female sources and a foremost 'feminist' (Gilot) do her own thing, this storyline didn't give much - if any - insight into the female psyche as to how she (they*) truly felt inwardly about this granted, prodigiously talented ergo charming artist, yet, presumably, egotistical selfish brat, that Picasso must have been, yet held such mesmerising, demoniacal sway over her (and them all!*)

Which then brings to A. Hopkins' 'portrait of an artist': unfortunately, he gives yet another of his 'I am Anthony Hopkins' - now Sir - so I can just act and deliver my lines in precisely the same way I as I do in virtually any film I have ever made' style …. other than the balding pate and the brown contact lenses, it's him - not in in the least convincing as Picasso, the genius and irresistible lover. In a word - or two - poor - and lazy.

* his four other major lovers are cast to appear in the film, but to no understandable reason as to why he exerted such sway over them. Perhaps the best female character in this quite clearly supposedly 'female perspective' film, is the de facto (Grand) Mother-in-law, (Gliot's Grandmother) played by the ever superb and reliable Joan Plowright, but who sadly was just not given enough time in the screenplay / film.

Overall, disappointing effort.

Wonderfully performed biographical piece.

[BadBad · 8/10 · 22 February 2000]

As far as context goes, I had already known most of the material from biographies in other sources. There were only a couple new aspects to this one. The acting was superb. Anthony Hopkins and Natascha McElhone were passionate and believable. It portrays Picasso's nature as narrated by one of his former lovers. It's NOT a fluff piece, but you shouldn't end up hating him unless you did already.

Worthy and well acted but simply not very involving

[bob the moo · 8 May 2003]

A bio-pic on the life of artist Pablo Picasso focusing on his wilder side – his rampant relationships with his many women, as seen from the perspective and understanding of the mother of many of his children – Françoise Gilot.. We pick up the story where Gilot meets Picasso with the intention of becoming his student.

I was slightly interested in this film as it seemed to have a high quality cast. I must admit that I have little interest in art and have a very limited knowledge of the work and life of Picasso. However I was open to learning and I hoped this film would enlighten me in some way – either in his work or his life. The film's focus is Picasso's private life rather than his work, this was an odd decision not to weave any of his work into the film in a significant way but it didn't put me off. What DID put me off was the fact that the film didn't involve me to the degree I had hoped it would. I'm not a consistent fan of Merchant & Ivory films simply because, unless they get it bang on (Remains of the Day) then they do leave me feeling a bit cold. Here that detached feeling was what I had the whole way through – I never felt for any of the characters or situations and never really got involved in the film, it was simply on in the same room as I was sitting more than me watching it.

It's a shame because the film is beautifully made – for all their faults, Merchant & Ivory films usually get that right. The sets and locations add to the film and are well shot. The cast is the main reason for watching this. Hopkins does very well in the lead and is running free for much of it. It confused me that I couldn't manage to link to his character – maybe I was watching Hopkins act as opposed to seeing the character. It's ironic that his best performance for Merchant & Ivory was the total opposite of this in Remains of the Day (controlled, low key, subtle). McElhone is partly responsible for me not feeling involved in the film. I felt she was too cold, too emotionless and not expressive enough in the lead female role. Good support is given by Moore and others, and Ackland is good as Henri Matisse.

Overall this is not as awful or boring as some would have you believe – Hopkins performance saves it from being that. But it did not involve me at all – I was left quite cold to it even though the passion in Hopkins' performance made me think I was missing something. It's hard to put into words but this film doesn't manage to hold the interest – not because of the subject, but more likely in the way it has been delivered.

Misleading title, bland movie

[archaeotypetw · 4/10 · 23 May 2010]

From the title, you would think that this was a story of terrible abuse and torture. In reality, the heroine has a pretty nice life with Picasso. No real abuse - the dude could be a pain, selfish, and insensitive, but who isn't? Picasso was kind to his other 'families,' and sure, he kept other women around, but if I was Picasso, I would too. If my wife didn't like it, she could just leave. I'm Picasso, I can do whatever I want.

The movie was well acted but the story was boring. I kept waiting for something interesting to happen but it didn't. It was well filmed, locations were okay. There should have been more nudity because I'm sure the real Picasso had a studio full of lovely naked girls. That would have made the movie more interesting.

Surviving Francois

[karl_consiglio · 8/10 · 5 May 2006]

Pablo Picasso portrayed by the only woman to have survived his narcissistic, manipulative, patronizing and womanizing tendencies and come out of the minotaur's labyrinth, his studio, before he shatters her. A great performance of the master painter and sculptor genius by Anthony Hopkins who is a master actor himself adequately next to his young co-stars. I am a great admirer of Picasso myself and I really appreciated all the research to fit every detail in its place to make this kind of biographical film. I'm very fond of the relationship Picasso had with Henry Matisse despite their differences and the competitiveness between them.

Possibly the worst movie i've ever seen

[im_an_orb · 1/10 · 3 August 2005]

i absolutely hated this film! having no interest in art, this film only held the interest that it had two of my favourite actors in it, Anthony Hopkins, and Julianne Moore. But although their performances may have been good, the film lacked in interest for me. Although my expectations of the film were high, maybe higher than they should have been, but those expectations were crushed some what. The film wasn't badly directed, acted (apart from the lead lady) or in any way, i general bad movie for those who are interested in those sorts of things. But the film really did generally bore me to death and i couldn't wait for it to end. If you are an art fan, you may enjoy this, if not,then i doubt this film will hold any interest to you.

Domination-Submission

[buyit-3 · 10/10 · 14 January 2006]

Magnificently crafted exploration of the question, how does a seeming despot generate such passion and devotion from the women around him. The high points are many but what makes the greatest mark is the flawless timing, throughout; then, of course, Hopkins completely lives the lead while McElhone preserves the central conundrum, the impossibility of the relationship(s). Forget the Picasso figure - apart from forming a setting and contributing the element of fame (I almost added "genius" but that's absolutely irrelevant, too), any similar figure would do, quite irrelevant to the point of the story which is to amplify the tension to be found in varying degrees in every one of our relationships. Extremely stimulating and provoking - not a must-see for 80s feminists.

Surviving this movie!(Drink to me ,drink to my health,you know I can't drink anymore!)

[dbdumonteil · 4 November 2002]

Anthony Hopkins is a very gifted actor,nobody can deny,but ,he was beginning to do any job going:playing Hannibal,Nixon and Picasso,it's much ,too much !Besides,James Ivory 's majestic talent ("Howards end" "remains of the day" "A room with the view" "Maurice") had inexorably waned."Jefferson in Paris" was already unsatisfying,smug and overblown.Still,it was entertaining."Surviving Picasso' is not.Only five minutes -let's be generous- are given over to the process of creation.The essential revolves around Picasso's relationship with women;this is neither rewarding nor entertaining,being trite,hollow and devoid of emotion , violence or/and tenderness.

Word to the wise:people interested in Picasso's art -which is more interesting than his private life!who cares?- should try to see Henri-Georges Clouzot 's "le mystère Picasso" (1956):Unlike Ivory,Clouzot films the REAL Picasso while he is creating.He paints on a sheet of glass and we can follow every lick of paint.

wrong subject for Merchant Ivory

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 1 February 2004]

It's 1943 Paris. Pablo Picasso (Anthony Hopkins) is selling paintings to the Nazis and being the famed artist. Françoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone) meets him as an admirer and becomes his long-time mistress. It's turbulent affair and she would have two kids with him. Her grandmother (Joan Plowright) warns her. The other women in his life includes his bitter wife Olga, Dora Maar (Julianne Moore), and Marie-Thérèse who has a daughter with him.

This is the wrong subject for Merchant Ivory. Their safe harbor is mannered people trying to restrain their inner turmoil. Picasso's turmoil is not interior. It is exterior. This movie needs flamboyance. Picasso is excessive in every ways. This contrast completely with the reserved nature of a Merchant Ivory movies. Hopkins has the acting power but the movie struggles to harness that power.

America is just a dream

[zdraveius · 8/10 · 13 February 2009]

Pablo Picass-, Spanish painter. 1943 in Paris occupied by German troops in the whole world speaks English. How much illiteracy in America be if all movies, regardless of location or origin of the action characters are spoken in English? What are Americans, anyway? A lot of people of all nation, close to everywhere, most of them without school, without education. A brief history of the nation and without anything special. Generations do not know how to write or read, not many know that there is anything outside of America and English. And yet, the rest of humanity is always reported in America. Worryingly decadent. If any director even accidentally sees these lines, he may contact Mel Gibson on his congratulations on his films spoken in a language other than English.

Surviving.....This Tedious and Uninspiring Film

[rbrb · 3/10 · 14 November 2007]

Two hours long; dull and tedious, and what a shame.

Picasso one of the most famous painters of all time yet this movie concentrates on him as an egotist, womanizer and bore.It is mainly about his later life and one tedious affair after another as well as the portrayal of him as totally selfish, whether true or not.

This is someone whose paintings can and do sell for 50 or 100 million US dollars, and like or loath, he was a Genius.

But no where in the picture does it properly:

i) Show us the Secret of his Genius;

or,

ii) Illustrate fully or sufficiently the artistry of his genius.

If one is going to make a movie about an Icon, give us some

inspiration please....

3/10

Good as complimentary educational material.

[Don_Byro · 5 August 2003]

The first time I watched this, I didn't really get what was going on. All the plots about Picasso's various wives seemed mixed up and uninvolving.

However, now that I am studying Picasso and his women for an AS art module, I can watch the film and feel very satisfied because it breathes a lot of life into the subject. For this reason it is worth having some fore-knowledge or a framework of Picasso's life prior to viewing it, which I guess restrains the target audience somewhat.

Hopkins was superb and became Picasso completely in behaviour and physique - even to the extent of shaving his head and wearing brown contact lenses. His accent took a while to take hold though, which I thought was odd, as the early scenes felt very cold and welsh simply because he hadn't quite shaken off his normal speech. This didn't matter after a while though, because his entire manner was actually very well done and really brought out the macho and possessive ego of this wild artist.

One major flaw however: Nazi stormtroopers would never march as sloppily as portrayed in this picture.

Surviving Picasso offers fresh perspective on emotional freedom in art

[humanitieshallhouse · 9/10 · 9 December 2007]

Although not mentioned in the IMDb profile, this film was also based on artist Francoise Gilot's work entitled, "Life with Picasso". In an interview with Charlie Rose, Gilot emphasized that her book's title came from the French "vivre" meaning to live or life in general, rather than the possessive "My Life". In interview, Gilot likened herself to a camera taking in the life around them.

Having said this, it must be understood that the screenplay was not written as a documentary on the artistic process, which is why it does not focus on the individual paintings or the techniques of Picasso, Gilot, Matisse or Braque, all of whom are noted masters of twentieth century art. Rather it is an important film for other reasons, as a character study as artist as a whole which a less insightful or sensitive observer might mistake for tedium or sentimentality. But even more significant is the film's revelation of the importance of autonomy and benevolence in the life of an artist.

Picasso is a daemon and no answers why.

[renata_st · 4/10 · 24 January 2004]

Even from the title 'Surviving Picasso' you can guess that this movie is about Picasso's personality. It's complex, impracticable, arrogant and so on and so fourth. But I watched this movie and couldn't understand why Picasso was like that? Actually, I felt that this movie is more about one of the Picasso's wives - how strong and brave she was. Picasso was shown as a real daemon, which controlled you, your feelings and emotions - you couldn't resist him, his will. But why was he doing it? Or how did he manipulate people? You won't find any answers here, in this movie. I was very disappointed: I wanted to know the real Picasso, what he was like, why he was like that. In this movie I could find only bits of information. I got much more interesting and intriguing information from a documentary on Discovery channel I saw latter.

I don't recommend you to watch this movie. It's not entertaining. It's not informative. It's not documentary. It's not fiction. Basically, it's misunderstanding. 4 out of 10

Very One Dimensional Indeed

[OsbourneRuddock · 3/10 · 16 October 2005]

I found this a highly disappointing film in that it seems to focus almost entirely on the misogynistic side of Picasso's personality, and his selfish insensitivity towards others. While these aspects of Picasso no doubt existed (his treatment of his children was appalling) the film fails to portray a rounded depiction of the man or what drove him. This very one-dimensional and oblique angled view is no doubt due to the fact that the film is based on the memories of his disillusioned wife, and I am reminded of the book written by Deborah Curtis about her husband the singer Ian Curtis, in which she whines on about the domestic reality of their relationship but offers virtually no insight into his art - which was surely the most interesting thing about him. The problem is that the relationships which these women have with their husbands is based on love and its commitments, and has nothing to do with their art or creativity. The world is full of brutal and misogynistic people, but what makes Picasso interesting is what he created. To make a film about an artist which ignores the inner imagination, psychology, and creative aspect of that person is pointless and uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins offers a fairly convincing performance, but this just isn't enough. For an artist biopic with more depth and substance I recommend Love Is The Devil (about painter Francis Bacon).

VERY NICE MOVIE

[butskhrikidze · 4/10 · 9 June 2020]

Very impressive movie with great performances, especially from Hopkins, nice script, generally very enjoyable film.