The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Precious to a fault, Wild Grass finds 88-year-old director Alain Resnais as joyously unconstrained as ever.
All Critics (87)
| Top Critics (28)
| Fresh (58)
| Rotten (29)
Alain Resnais keeps sprouting marvelous artistic herbage at an age when most of his contemporaries are pushing up grass from a different perspective.
At age 88, Resnais hasn't lost his capacity to confound.
What can you say: The French sure know how to make pretty pictures.
Wild Grass might be the strangest film I've seen all year. Maybe all millennium. Is it any good? Quite frankly, I have no idea.
Along with such fantasy elements as rich, primary colors and an ending that suggests we've jumped to some other cinematic dimension, Wild Grass, like compulsive filmmaking, embraces the intensity of subjective experience...
At 88, the legendary French director Alain Resnais has earned the right to make whatever movie he wants, even a smug deconstructionist parlor game like Wild Grass. Thankfully, this doesn't require you to watch it.
There is plenty of whimsy, but none of it fresh or delightful.
It is all so glorious, and all so frustrating... Resnais fully finds here what he has sought since at least Life is a Bed of Roses in 1983: an unbearable lightness of being.
A glorious mix of comedy and fantasy, Resnais is improving with age, creating characters that probably are a reflection of his view on the world, with his experience and charm.
Although Wild Grass doesn't reach the heights of Resnais' earliest works, it provides ample evidence that the director can still produce vibrant and thrilling work and hopefully will continue to do so through his 90s as well.
A confounding psychodrama that made me laugh in the scenes that were meant to be serious and remain mute in the scenes that were meant to be amusing.
Resnais is having fun here, possibly at the expense of audiences who demand tradition.
Alain Resnais proves at 87 years old that he still has a lot of imagination, delivering this curious nonsensical fable that plays with the conventions of the genre and with our expectations, and the result may feel like not much but is daring enough to be worth our time.
A man haltingly pursues a woman whose wallet he found.
If this is the French New Wave, then I should start watching the Old Wave. In Wild Grass there is so little attention paid to good exposition that I found myself lost, wondering about the characters' relationships to each other even after the first act was a memory. And the performance by Andre Dussolier does little to reveal his character's motivations. Performances like these are good when the story is clear and solid, but Resnais's concentration is on that which is unclear, so the sum is a character who behaves strangely but whose motivations for his strangeness remain a mystery, unconnected to the random shots of weeds. And when he yells and snaps in a romantic story we wonder what the whole point is.
Overall, there are people who find this absurdist alienation interesting and refreshing, but I'm not one of them.
Wild Grass has the most fantastic opening scene. We have this vivid imagery, charming narration, an endearing character, and the introduction to an intriguing plot. Everything seems set up just right to lead to something amazing. Well, the thing is, the film opens on it's highest point. While the rest it good, it just feels like a let down after the opening material. Plus, I'm sort of confused why it opens with Marguerite when she really doesn't spend as much time as Georges in the film. I mean, it just seems like she plays a more subordinate role in the thing. Anyway, that's just overanalyzing things, but still there is just something ... off about the rest of the film and I cannot totally put a finger on what it was. I did like how the story is something that at first seems conventional, but does not play out in the way that you would expect it to at all - by and large. Or rather, it guess to the places you would expect, but takes an alternate route to get there. I liked Marguerite quite a lot, but the rest of the characters are sort of forgettable. Idk, the film had it's moments and really is good. It just felt like it was missing something.
There is a notion to make over 65's retake their driving test for fear they have become dangerous to other road users and themselves. I fear a similar test for senility may be required for revered auteur filmakers to protect their legacy. This film is utterly atrocious in almost every way (the score is ok). Presumably the distinguished cast and crew deferred to Resnais' every whim no matter how crackpot on account of his presumed 'genius'. The list of flaws is endless but succinctly, it seems to condone violent stalking and sexual assault by married octagenarian leches (who bizarrly are supposed to be 50) - women might initially be resistant to one's advances but hold out and then you can ignore them when finally they wake up and see your obvious (?) charms. I sincerely hope for Resnais that this is not thinly veiled autobiography. The characters are totally miscast and unbelievably inconsistent and insincere, the plot makes no sense, tonally it shifts from thrilller to drama to sex farce at will .............. I could go on - almost worth seeing as a spectacle of ineptitude.
View All Quotes