MovieChat Forums > Le voyage du ballon rouge (2008) Discussion > Dreadful.

Dreadful.

posted 16 years ago by twodaysslow
15 replies | jump to latest

I went to see this film last night as part of the Purbeck film festival. I watch quite a lot of foreign films and find them enjoyable and refreshing, but this was insufferably boring. The cinema was full but I counted at least 6 people who fell asleep. Maybe I just didn't 'get it' but based on the vast majority of reviews there wasn't a lot to get in any case. I felt like I had been asked to observe some quite ordinary french citizens for the day, who were striving to be as boring and introverted as possible. It seemed like a great deal of what Hou was trying to convey in the film, whatever the central themes were, took place in the heads of the characters and at no point was the audience invited to explore them. Basically, nothing happened in this film. The cinematography was aesthetically pleasing in some parts, but how many scenes of people staring into/out of windows is necessary? There was no character development, no chemistry, no drama, nothing. There was barely any dialogue, just shots of the kitchen, buildings, people walking along, with the depressing piano music. I find it hard to believe anyone actually ENJOYED this film, even more so after reading the condescending posts on here by the fans implying that most of us are too simple to understand the alleged great artistic integrity.

I think this would have been better as a short film; half an hour, maybe even ten minutes. Whatever point the film had got lost in an extremely long two hour void of blandness and the directors self importance.

[–] julievignondecourcy 16 years ago

Nah, it was just too subtle for you

[–] twodaysslow 15 years ago

Nah, the film was just empty.

[–] davidgoesboating 15 years ago

I tend to agree with the first reply. This film isn't empty at all, actually quite deep with or without the balloon's significance (which I must admit I didn't quite grasp much if at all). It tells a basic, mundane story of day-to-day life in a way very few films are able to present, and in doing so, gives us an insight into the nature of our lives and our relationships with others.

[–] keysersoze3421 15 years ago

Yeah, that sounds incredibly subtle. If I made a film about a guy living a plebeian existence sitting around on his couch and doing minutiae all day, would you call that a great film because it tells a story of mundane day-to-day life? I gained zero "insight" into ANYTHING as it relates to life. Calling subtle is complete hyperbole. It tells nothing of relevant relationships and mother-son bonds. Hou probably made this film as a joke, seeing how many people would unreasonably praise it in the process.

[–] tadeu-br 15 years ago

I didn't understand the movie, did you?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Marie-Girard 14 years ago

It isn't an excellent movie but not dreadful in any sense. I hope you at least were interested in Binoche and her performance. She is once again just a breathtaking actress. She's very very good in her role.

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

I agree with the original post.

I found it to be quite a bad film, trying to capitalize on the success of the 1956 film, despite having nothing to do with it -- a cheap way of pretending to be significant. Frankly, without that reference, it would have been a better film, but far fewer people would have elected to see it, and thus the world would be a proportionally happier place.

If the story has no beginning, no middle, no end, and the characters have no character (except for mom, who is not the focus of the film) then I'm not interested. Binoche did give a good performance, but it isn't enough to rescue this trial by screen.

I'd use this film as an example of dreadfully bad filmmaking (which is why I was drawn to this post). I gave it a 5 out of 10, for being pointless and dull, almost work to watch. If it had been edited down into a short, maybe it could have been a 6.

[–] dragmio 14 years ago

If you want a story go read a book. If you want "well WRITTEN" characters go see a play (preferably Shakespeare's).

Films are about filming a material and editing it. This one does a brilliant job at both.

[–] desperateliving 14 years ago

I think assessing the film from the perspective of themes, character development, drama, etc, are not appropriate ways to examine the film; it doesn't work in that way.

But to say that "nothing happened" is I think a gross misunderstanding of it. A lot happened. A boy welcomed in a new surrogate parent into his life. A mother found someone who could lovingly take care of her child. And rather than those events "happening," Hou gave us many thoughtful examples of what happens when they do.

To me it sounds like you want an elaborately landscaped garden that can be deconstructed and viewed as a series of parts, where what Hou is providing is the calm, steady foundation of the pond that feeds the plants. Neither is necessarily better than the other, but they are different, and can't really be understood in the same way.

[–] magnafield 13 years ago

Totally agree - Margaret Pomeranz on the ABC was unintentionally right - it's a film about nothing, more like a documentary with nothing really interesting to say - I walked out after 60 minutes, the red balloon by then had not reappeared since the opening titles, & Juliet Binoche a bland actor at the best of times had mercifully only appeared briefly albeit in a totally unsympathetic role. I was absolutely disappointed with Margaret's misleading assessments & almost felt like demanding my money back from the box office!

[–] Eva_Yojimbo 13 years ago

Those who watch this film and say "nothing happened" are the same kinds of people who walk through everyday life while saying "nothing happened". Just because you don't know how how to see doesn't mean that what you're seeing is nothing.

http://www.cinelogue.com/ <- Contributing under Jonathan Henderson

[–] onegreendress 12 years ago

"Just because you don't know how to see doesn't mean that what you're seeing is nothing."

Awesome comment...reminds me of Twain's remark about people who can read and don't being worse than those who can't read.....

[–] jasongrimshaw 12 years ago

Absolutely great comment. Perfectly captures the reflexive nature of Hou's work