Surviving Picasso - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Surviving Picasso Reviews

Page 1 of 5
Super Reviewer
½ July 16, 2007
Like a movie star, Picasso had many relationships. This movie is about one of those relationships in fact, between Picasso at 60 and a 20's year old Francoise. I cannot believe how dependant on Picasso the mistresses are, but there is hope in the heroine of the movie.
December 19, 2014
A very odd film, but what not to expect from Pablo Picasso? I never knew anything about him besides some of his work, so as a viewer I'd have to say I didn't like his lifestyle of being so polygamous with women. Everyone did well in the acting part, saying both Francoise and Picasso did excellent. I had a few moments laughing at Anthony Hopkins because I know him for strict serious roles. Natascha played a very strong woman, when really made me think about my own life a bit if I were in Francoise's shoes. I myself am an artist, so looking at the lifestyle of then and now really differ but then again have a lot of similarities. I have to say I was not at all satisfied with the ending, because I wanted to see what else happened to Francoise, and just wanting to see if Picasso would treat her like the rest of the women. Of course I saw some passion in his eyes still, which led me on and didn't expect the credits to roll at that point, thinking there was or had to be more leaving me at the end of the credits' black screen. I will say it was a good biography if hoping the story is a true one, and if so I feel bad for the two's children. I would have liked to see where they went off to as well, but I guess that's up to me to read on about Picasso and Francoise on my own. I thought this movie was just alright, it didn't have a huge impact to my interests though the actors and actresses were all portrayed very well. It was interesting hearing Julianne speak in an accent as well. I would recommend this to people who are interested in Picasso, but someone who wouldn't be might not enjoy this so much.
October 6, 2011
This movie isn't even about Picasso. It would have been nice to see Hopkins tackle an actual biopic, but this is a bastardized and misplaced attempt at an inaccurate romantic drama.

Instead of watching a movie about Picasso and his evolution as an artist, we instead follow the life story of a coat-tail riding girlfriend. It is boring, tedious, unbearably overlong, and just focuses on the most unnecessary and trivial things in an extremely interesting and inspirational life.

Surprisingly, the acting is a major flaw. Hopkins does not exude the ere of Picasso, who while confident and sometimes boisterous, was often introverted and very sensitive. McElhone is ok, but for some reason, she instead of Hopkins is counted on to carry the film, and her act wears pretty thin in a 2 hour plus movie.

The direction is wandering, aimless and focus-less, which given the plot, fits right in. (That was not a complement). The script is heavy, and bogs down the already questionable interplay between the actors. I did enjoy a few things, particularly the interplay between Picasso and his friend/rival Henri Matesse, which was one of the few accurate points in the story.

Above all the acting/script/direction problems is the story. I can overlook some of the above weaknesses if I'm given an entertaining plot. But this is dry, self-important, going nowhere dribble. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as far as his artistic development, genius or inspiration. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as an artist at all. Picasso the ARTIST is where a Picasso movie becomes worthwhile, not Picasso the womanizing douche.
December 6, 2011
This movie isn't even about Picasso. It would have been nice to see Hopkins tackle an actual biopic, but this is a bastardized and misplaced attempt at an inaccurate romantic drama.

Instead of watching a movie about Picasso and his evolution as an artist, we instead follow the life story of a coat-tail riding girlfriend. It is boring, tedious, unbearably overlong, and just focuses on the most unnecessary and trivial things in an extremely interesting and inspirational life.

Surprisingly, the acting is a major flaw. Hopkins does not exude the ere of Picasso, who while confident and sometimes boisterous, was often introverted and very sensitive. McElhone is ok, but for some reason, she instead of Hopkins is counted on to carry the film, and her act wears pretty thin in a 2 hour plus movie.

The direction is wandering, aimless and focus-less, which given the plot, fits right in. (That was not a complement). The script is heavy, and bogs down the already questionable interplay between the actors. I did enjoy a few things, particularly the interplay between Picasso and his friend/rival Henri Matesse, which was one of the few accurate points in the story.

Above all the acting/script/direction problems is the story. I can overlook some of the above weaknesses if I'm given an entertaining plot. But this is dry, self-important, going nowhere dribble. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as far as his artistic development, genius or inspiration. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as an artist at all. Picasso the ARTIST is where a Picasso movie becomes worthwhile, not Picasso the womanizing douche.
December 19, 2008
I've never quite understood how one can be expected to enjoy watching two hours of miserable people being miserable and making each other miserable (i.e., every film Woody Allen makes), but once in a while, I find myself doing exactly that. "Surviving Picasso" definitely falls into that category. I can't seem to explain, even to myself, why I would recommend this film, but I do. James Ivory's direction is on par with his best work, and there were wonderful performances by the entire cast. Perhaps these were the film's only saving graces, but that would be too simple. Despite watching these morally-underdeveloped people flouting even the most basic rules of human relationships and wounding each other so gravely, I remained interested in their plight. I'm not sure how glowing a review this is, but in the end, I was absorbed in a story the filmmakers wanted to tell, and surely that was their goal. Thus, I must say this movie was "good," in that sense, but I could sure stand to watch a Bugs Bunny cartoon or two after it was over...
½ May 3, 2007
A portrait of the painters inner sanctum. A cross-section on the artist's life. Good for art lovers!
April 12, 2007
[size=2]5-4-3-2-1.....just some bad 90's films.

[b]Spitfire Girl (1996) - 5.4/10
[/b]Director - Lee David Zlotoff
Starring - Alison Elliott, Ellen Burstyn, Marica Gay Harden, Will Patton, Kieran Mulroney, John M. Jackson.
A few distracting subplots detract from the fine performances.

[b]Surviving Picasso (1996) - 4.5/10
[/b]Director - James Ivory
Starring - Anthony Hopkins, Natascha McElhone, Julianne Moore, Jane Lapotaire, Joss Ackland, Joan Plowright.
Picasso deserved better.

[b]South Central (1992) - 3.3/10
[/b]Director - Steve Anderson
Starring - Glenn Plummer, Byron Minns, LaRita Shelby, Carl Lumbly, Christian Coleman, Vincent Craig Dupree.
The success of Do the Right Thing and Boyz in the Hood brought on more stories of the hood, almost all of which pale by comparison. Nothing but cookie cutter characters many of whom are laughably stereotyped.


[b]Stargate (1994) - 2.5/10[/b]
Director - Roland Emmerich
Starring - James Spader, Kurt Russell, Jaye Davidson.
Ha!


[b]The Specialist (1994) - 1.1/10
[/b]Director - Luis Llosa
Starring - Sylvester Stallone, Sharon Stone, Rod Steiger, Eric Roberts, James Woods.
Ha!

[b][/b]
[/size]
August 22, 2006
Never been able to watch the entire thing as a whole, but the 80% of the movie i have seen is well done.
July 24, 2015
I got a bit lost with all the wives and mistresses he had. Otherwise a good film.
December 19, 2014
A very odd film, but what not to expect from Pablo Picasso? I never knew anything about him besides some of his work, so as a viewer I'd have to say I didn't like his lifestyle of being so polygamous with women. Everyone did well in the acting part, saying both Francoise and Picasso did excellent. I had a few moments laughing at Anthony Hopkins because I know him for strict serious roles. Natascha played a very strong woman, when really made me think about my own life a bit if I were in Francoise's shoes. I myself am an artist, so looking at the lifestyle of then and now really differ but then again have a lot of similarities. I have to say I was not at all satisfied with the ending, because I wanted to see what else happened to Francoise, and just wanting to see if Picasso would treat her like the rest of the women. Of course I saw some passion in his eyes still, which led me on and didn't expect the credits to roll at that point, thinking there was or had to be more leaving me at the end of the credits' black screen. I will say it was a good biography if hoping the story is a true one, and if so I feel bad for the two's children. I would have liked to see where they went off to as well, but I guess that's up to me to read on about Picasso and Francoise on my own. I thought this movie was just alright, it didn't have a huge impact to my interests though the actors and actresses were all portrayed very well. It was interesting hearing Julianne speak in an accent as well. I would recommend this to people who are interested in Picasso, but someone who wouldn't be might not enjoy this so much.
April 23, 2013
An ultimately dry film, James Ivory's biopic of Picasso's premiere mistress does have good performances, even if Hopkins never fully transforms into the legendary painter, some moments of humour, usually Picasso's comments & observations about others, and even some inventive flashback sequences that take on Picasso-esque aesthetics, but the script never really explores why these women are drawn to and stay with Picasso, despite his duplicitous nature, and furthermore, Picasso's art never gets much attention nor examination, missing a great opportunity for parallels and psychological exploration.
½ April 6, 2013
Horrible movie.. Nothing like the real man & his very English accent Didnt help out either when are they going to add real authenticity like say maybe using a Spanish actor to play a Spanish lead that might be somewhat innovative don't you think Hollywood it's about time they stop overlooking us and give Latinos their just due!!!
December 7, 2012
Would like to see at some stage. Hopkins & Moore reunited.
April 22, 2012
I wonder if this one is good? Must be with Anthony Hopkins in it.
January 13, 2012
The best Anthony Hopkins.
October 6, 2011
This movie isn't even about Picasso. It would have been nice to see Hopkins tackle an actual biopic, but this is a bastardized and misplaced attempt at an inaccurate romantic drama.

Instead of watching a movie about Picasso and his evolution as an artist, we instead follow the life story of a coat-tail riding girlfriend. It is boring, tedious, unbearably overlong, and just focuses on the most unnecessary and trivial things in an extremely interesting and inspirational life.

Surprisingly, the acting is a major flaw. Hopkins does not exude the ere of Picasso, who while confident and sometimes boisterous, was often introverted and very sensitive. McElhone is ok, but for some reason, she instead of Hopkins is counted on to carry the film, and her act wears pretty thin in a 2 hour plus movie.

The direction is wandering, aimless and focus-less, which given the plot, fits right in. (That was not a complement). The script is heavy, and bogs down the already questionable interplay between the actors. I did enjoy a few things, particularly the interplay between Picasso and his friend/rival Henri Matesse, which was one of the few accurate points in the story.

Above all the acting/script/direction problems is the story. I can overlook some of the above weaknesses if I'm given an entertaining plot. But this is dry, self-important, going nowhere dribble. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as far as his artistic development, genius or inspiration. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as an artist at all. Picasso the ARTIST is where a Picasso movie becomes worthwhile, not Picasso the womanizing douche.
December 6, 2011
This movie isn't even about Picasso. It would have been nice to see Hopkins tackle an actual biopic, but this is a bastardized and misplaced attempt at an inaccurate romantic drama.

Instead of watching a movie about Picasso and his evolution as an artist, we instead follow the life story of a coat-tail riding girlfriend. It is boring, tedious, unbearably overlong, and just focuses on the most unnecessary and trivial things in an extremely interesting and inspirational life.

Surprisingly, the acting is a major flaw. Hopkins does not exude the ere of Picasso, who while confident and sometimes boisterous, was often introverted and very sensitive. McElhone is ok, but for some reason, she instead of Hopkins is counted on to carry the film, and her act wears pretty thin in a 2 hour plus movie.

The direction is wandering, aimless and focus-less, which given the plot, fits right in. (That was not a complement). The script is heavy, and bogs down the already questionable interplay between the actors. I did enjoy a few things, particularly the interplay between Picasso and his friend/rival Henri Matesse, which was one of the few accurate points in the story.

Above all the acting/script/direction problems is the story. I can overlook some of the above weaknesses if I'm given an entertaining plot. But this is dry, self-important, going nowhere dribble. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as far as his artistic development, genius or inspiration. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as an artist at all. Picasso the ARTIST is where a Picasso movie becomes worthwhile, not Picasso the womanizing douche.
May 18, 2010
This movie isn't even about Picasso. It would have been nice to see Hopkins tackle an actual biopic, but this is a basterdized and misplaced attempt at an inaccurate romantic drama. Instead of watching a movie about Picasso and his evolution as an artist, we instead follow the lifestory of a coat riding girlfriend. It is boring, tedious, unbearably overlong, and just focuses on the most unneccisary and trivial things in an extremely interesting and inspirational life. Suprisingly, the acting is a major flaw. Hopkins does not exhude the ere of Picasso, who while confident and sometimes boisterous, was often introverted and very sensitive. McElhone is ok, but for some reason, she instead of Hopkins is counted on to carry the film, and her act wears pretty thin in a 2 hour plus movie. The direction is wandering, aimless and focusless, which given the plot, fits right in. (That was not a complement). The script is heavy, and bogs down the already questionable interplay between the actors. I did enjoy a few things, particularly the interplay between Picasso and his friend/rival Henri Matesse, which was one of the few accurate points in the story. Above all the acting/script/direction problems is the story. I can overlook some of the above weaknesses if I'm given an entertaining plot. But this is dry, self-important, going nowhere dribble. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as far as his artistic development, genius or inspiration. There is little to no time spent on Picasso as an artist at all. Picasso the ARTIST is where a Picasso movie becomes worthwhile, not Picasso the womanizing deuche.
Page 1 of 5