Review: Priceless (2008) ****
For Gad Elmaleh and Audrey Tautou, five cocktails lead to an elevator
ride and an elevator ride leads to a roll in the hay in Priceless
If you peer too deeply into the heart of Priceless, you might be horrified by what you see. My suggestion is that you don’t look that hard because you’ll be depriving yourself of one of the frothier, more entertaining romantic comedies to come down the pike in a long while. It’s the kind of farce that only the French and possibly the Italians seem able to pull off. In America, unless the name above the title is Blake Edwards (and sometimes even if it is), the result is usually crass. Here, it sparkles like champagne and it even tickles a little bit going down.
A kindred spirit of Mr. Edwards’ Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Priceless concerns itself with Audrey Tautou as a beautiful gold digger who latches herself onto rich older men in the hope of getting one to marry her. Tautou has often been compared to Audrey Hepburn, further enhancing the connection to the Edwards film, but it’s a mistake to read too much into the similarities. Priceless is very much its own film and it follows its own muse. Tiffany’s has a much darker and sadder edge, born in part from America’s attitudes about sex which are much more backward than those of our Gallic counterparts. If Tiffany’s is a lighter version of Truman Capote’s novel, then Priceless is even lighter still.
As Irène, Tautou leaves her pixyish Amélie character back in Montmarte, seemingly a million miles away. She’s still got the smirk and the mischievous eyes of melted dark chocolate, but she’s altogether sexier and more worldly. One night in Biarritz on the French Basque coast, she finds her wealthy companion passed out drunk. It’s her birthday and she’s lonely so she finds her way down to the nearly deserted hotel bar. There she meets barman Jean played by Gad Elmaleh. She mistakes him for another rich man and is happy to have him fix her fancy cocktails with star fruit and colorful umbrellas. Five of these later, they end up in bed together. The next morning, Irene awakes to find she’s been locked out of her suite and her rich, older benefactor packed up and gone.
A year later, Irène and Jean meet again under similar circumstances, this time in Nice on the French Riviera. Once again, they end up in bed together and once again Irène is found out by the man she’s with. At first she hopes to turn her affections toward Jean, a man she genuinely seems to like, but then she finally discovers he’s just a lowly hotel employee. He understood her mistake from the start and was happy to play the rich man, but by now he’s quite in love. Though she cruelly tries to shake him by mercilessly spending every penny he has, he won’t be deterred. Eventually she hooks up with another man and Jean, now penniless, lucks into a flirtation with a wealthy older woman.
Irène sees that Jean is now her equal and she teaches him how to take best material advantage of his situation. She explains that his youth and charm are his secret weapon. Jean doesn’t feel special, but he now finds he has the means to be able to follow Irène up and down the Riviera until he can make her his own. Of Moroccan Jewish decent, Elmaleh has big, almost sad, puppy dog eyes and an endearingly gallant manner. Even though he’s not a traditional hunk, it’s easy to hope he’ll soon melt Tautou’s mercenary heart, rich or not.
Indeed, where Priceless ends up is neither very original nor very surprising, but the fun is in the lightly comic path it takes getting there. Most importantly, Tautou and Elmaleh make a charming team. It might be easy to get caught up in the characters’ amorality, but the movie doesn’t and neither should you. The rich know they’re essentially paying for expensive arm candy and the arm candy knows what they’re being used for. Everyone is happy as long as appearances are kept up.
Like beauty, Priceless is only skin deep and it’s best taken at face value. As such, it’s certainly a trifle, but it’s a funny and entertaining trifle full of beautiful locations and a unique French flavor. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours in a theater.
Priceless/Hors De Prix. France 2006 (US Release 2008). Directed by Pierre Salvadori. Written by Benoît Graffin. Cinematography by Gilles Henry. Music score composed by Camille Bazbaz. Starring Audrey Tautou, Gad Elmaleh, Marie-Christine Adam and Vernon Dobtcheff. 1 hour 44 minutes. In French with English subtitles. MPAA Rated PG-13 for sexual content including nudity. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - Weekend Forecast: 3/28/08
- The Watercooler: 3/31/08
- Movies You May Have Missed: 11/15/08
- The Watercooler: 10/20/08
- Hotel Chevalier - No Foreigners Allowed
How gorgeous is she in that picture? Wow. She looks so care-free and, um, French, they have a way about them, don’t they? She looks hot there, whereas in Amelie she just looked cute like a pixie and not a vixen. What am I even going on about? Flip if I know.
I am really glad you enjoyed the film, got something worth seeing, instead of all that *stuff you guys have been getting up there.
I am not a romantic comedy lover, but I enjoy them if they are crass-less, and mix that up with Audrey Tautou, and you got me. Your reference to Breakfast at Tiffany’s makes me smile, and if is Priceless is a “kindred spirit” of Tiffany’s, then it must be something special, even if not entirely original.
I sort of hate BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, truth be told, although that’s mostly for the whole Mickey Rooney-playing-Asian thing, which is really awful. I’ll check this out anyway, and I think I might enjoy this one somewhat more. I’m guessing the Frenchness will help.
On paper, no interest in this but I can’t deny the Tautou factor so I guess I’m in, especially after seeing all these stills Craig keeps posting. Normally I’m not a huge fan of romantic comedies, but I’m a sucker for romance in movies that isn’t completely insulting to my intelligence. This looks like fun.
Thanks for the review, Craig.
Elmaleh looks a bit like James McAvoy, methinks.
I really like Tatou, although apart from Amelie I’ve found her films to be hit-and-miss. A Very Long Engagement was veeeeeeery long, and did you ever see He Loves Me…He Loves Me Not? That is, by far, one of the most twisted films I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. My mouth was agape the entire second half. I couldn’t believe the French found this entertaining.
Great review, Craig. I’ll have to put this one on my radar.
I think I commented about this on a thread a couple of months ago, but only now have I realized it’s the same movie. I had only seen a poster of an upcoming film with Tautou that looked like a French version of a bad American romantic comedy. Glad that it’s not, and I’ll make time to see it when it arrives here.
Thanks guys. I fear this review may come back to bite me on the ass, but i was a in a good movie mood and the thing did exactly what it set out to do. What’s not to like about that? Plus, like Paul, I have this thing for the French.
It’s funny you mention Andy Rooney Paul. I had a sentence or two in the review saying exactly what you just said, though in slightly stronger terms, but it just didn’t work.
I reworded it and moved it around and nothing worked so I chopped it out. But, yeah, let me say here and now that Rooney’s buck-toothed Mr. Yunioshi character is cringe-worthy and embarrassing.
That’s a fabulous still.
She’s even better when she moves. :)
“Here, it sparkles like champagne and it even tickles a little bit going down.”
“She’s still got the smirk and the mischievous eyes of melted dark chocolate, but she’s altogether sexier and more worldly.”
Who can resist effervescence and spicy chocolat?
It’s good to go with your gut on this whole review process. Your readership may not agree with you 100% of the time on the whole, but at least you’re not writing to the audience. That’s always a recipe for disaster.
And what’s the harm if some of us occasionally check out a movie we didn’t like due to your review? Is there any damage in that? As long as you’re not trying to hype Vantage Point or Norbit, I’m pretty comfortable with the rare swing-and-a-miss from our man Craig.
I love Ebert, and he and I don’t always see eye to eye on all things film.
Evan, are you badmouthing A Very Long Engagement? summons voice and mannerisms of Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood OUT WITH YOU, DEVIL!!!
Hehe, I can see how A Very Long Engagement wouldn’t hit everyone so well, but to me it’s Tautou’s best performance to date (which is saying something). I like Amelie but it hasn’t held up as well as its reputation in my opinion. To me, it was a warm-up for Jeunet’s A Very Long Engagement, which to me is one of the fastest 2-1/4 hour long films I’ve seen.
Anyway… Um, did I mention that Tautou looks positively stunning in that still? I’m so glad she’s gone from cuteness to, um, sexiness, with such apparent grace. A picture really does say a thousand words. I’m there.
As much as I like Blake Edwards, Breakfast at Tiffany’s never quite won me over. It’s my least favorite considered-to-be-good film of his. I think one problem is that I’ve never found Audrey Hepburn “sexy,” just cute, and so I think she’s (gasp!) kind of miscast in that.
Could you post more pictures like that. But, you know. Kind of cutting out the left half of the picture.
What K. Bowen said.
I’d have to completely disagree with you Alexander on Engagement vs. Amelie, but I’d also say it’s completely unfair to compare the two. I do think Engagement is heavily influenced by Tatou’s Amelie performance, and that is to Engagement’s detriment. It’s a good movie, but nowhere near as enjoyable or inviting as Amelie. And it shouldn’t be, yet Jeunet seems to want to have his WWI romantic drama and eat his Amelie cake too. Can’t say the result is entirely satisfying, but after three viewings Engagement has finally started to really grow on me.
I’d admit that Amelie has a lot bells and whistles and that may ultimately make it seem to be more of a confection than a complete story, but by the time you get to the final scene with the cat, I’m so tightly wrapped around Amelie’s little finger that I’m a puddle of tears.
Beautiful movies both, but I’ll take the light-hearted joy and mirth of Amelie’s tortured search for love and idealic perfection over Engagement’s dark and relentless torturous search for a lost lover any day.
All this from the guy that normally eschews romantic comedy over dark drama, no less.
Here’s another one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2219874304/tt0482088
I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the Tiffany’s comparisons I keep reading, even if it was intentional on the part of the filmmaker, they’re very different. Priceless uses many of the same raw ingredients, but tonally and in a comedic sense, they’re not in the same ballpark. I don’t mean that as a judgment of good or bad either.
For a dissenting opinion, check out Mr. Cranky Gonzales over here:
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3529
My opinion he completely missed the boat.
Thanks for your encouragement Joel. I have to say it’s much easier to stand by a review when you trash something. Liking something and shouting it from the rooftops…well it’s easy to feel like you’re standing there with your bare ass hanging out.
As I guy who also really liked Engagement, I’m with Joel and the Amelie enthusiasm. I know it became chic to dump on it once it became more popular than it should’ve been, but damnit it won me over at a time in my life when I was far more cynical than I am now.
I can’t comment eloquently on Engagment because it’s been too long since I’ve seen it. It’s on my list though when I get around to watching and rewatching things that have Marion Cotillard in them.
That’s in many ways the most fascinating thing about films–which ones move some people while fail to do so for others and how it works in the opposite direction for those very same people. I’ve tried Ameile three times myself and I can say that, while it’s a sugary-sweet, enjoyably produced “confection,” as you say some may see it as, Joel, it just never hits me as hard as it does for so many others. I like Tautou’s performance, I like Kassovitz, I like many of Jeunet’s zany, gonzo decisions but it just never completely added up for me. The ending with the cat is touching, to be sure, and I didn’t want to make it sound like I somehow dislike Amelie because I don’t–I think it’s a good film.
Whereas, by the time the final scene of A Very Long Engagement arrives, I’m fighting off tears.
Both films have their high points, but Engagement to me plays like a Truffaut war film, as though Truffaut would ever make a war film (arguing that just the imagery of war makes a film depicting it inherently “pro-war,” a sentiment with which I just can’t entirely agree). Naturally it has its cake and eats it, too, while being far less “enjoyable” than Amelie.
I’m usually very receptive to lightweight, high-calorie films like Amelie, particularly French ones but I felt like most of what it offered had been done before. Engagement took all of that and threw it into the grind of a nearly merciless war film.
I think I wouldn’t be making my case so adamantly if Engagement were better appreciated by most people but it doesn’t seem to be, so I’m continually befuddled by many people exalting what I think is the minor accomplishment, Amelie, and neglecting the major one in Engagement.
There are personal touches to these biases, too, I suppose. I never saw Amelie in the cinema so I missed out on the collective appreciation with a group of people. With Engagement, I saw it with a packed art-house crowd and I count it among my very favorite theatre experiences ever, bar none. It’s cliched as all get out, but if there was ever a film that made an entire audience laugh in one breath and cry in the next, it was Engagement and it had a sort of hypnotizing quality. That said, I’ve seen Engagement a couple of times since then and it’s held up beautifully, so it can’t be all based on that for me.
But like you say, “…Beautiful movies both…”
One thing’s for sure, I am hotly anticipating Jeunet’s next film as I think he’s an excellent director (including his earlier work that he co-directed) who seems to be getting better all the time.
Different strokes for different folks and all that.
2004 was actually a better than average year for romantic films with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, A Very Long Engagement and even The Terminal, which, as usual with Spielberg, concludes unhappily for the romantics.
(Sadly, I’ve got to go now.)
I agree with everything you said Alexander, except for the Terminal, which I haven’t seen. As you say, different strokes and all that.
I’m probably one of the only people on the planet that kinda likes Alien 4: Resurrection, so consider me something of a Juenet apologist and like I said, I think Engagement is a good movie. I do feel the need to defend Amelie, especially since its list of detractors has grown since it came out amid a ton of hype.
I’m glad he gave up on Hollywood and went back across the Atlantic to continue his career. He deserves better than Alien 4. Jeunet is one of the most inventive directors to ever get behind a camera.
Looks like Jeunet will finally grace us with another film in 2009. That has been far too long of a wait, mind you.
I’m in the Joel and Craig camp on this one, preferring Amelie over the also excellent Engagement. For me, it was a near perfect realization. I had no choice but to surrender my heart to it. By doing so I felt a flush of joy that came from being focused in such a winning way on love, imagination, a romanticized Gaelic eccentricity, the realization of the most personal longing, and the beauty of the everyday and of La Ville-lumière.
If only they could bottle such a heady mix.
I agree with you, Joel, about Jeunet in just about every respect–he’s certainly one of the most inventive directors behind the camera. And I definitely understand why you’d want to stand up to the backlash against a film–a sort of anti-backlash, haha.
I’m eagerly looking forward to his next film. I believe it starts production this month? Such a long wait.
Alien 4 may be a mess but Jeunet makes shinola out of it.
That’s a mighty fine description of Amelie, sartre.
Hmm..I think I have couple of comments floating in cyberspace on the way to LiC. I’ll stop trying before I flood the thread.
Craig had no choice but to block your vitriolic and expletive filled ranting, Daniel :-)
I am in the ENGAGEMENT camp, and I regret to say I never liked AMELIE from the beginning. But no matter, it’s all taste; both films have their adherents.
Engagement certainly couldn’t ask for better champions than Alexander and Sam. Their support has prompted me to check it out again.
HA, now I get it. I was trying to link to Roger Ebert’s letter from yesterday and now the LiC gatekeeper is telling me my comment is marked as spam. Sorry!
I’ll take Amelie over Engagement based only the number of times I’ve seen each, though everytime I see Amelie, Tautou’s character seems younger and younger, or maybe she just acts it. Sometimes I find her naivety hard to swallow, but her whimsical spirit more than makes up for it, and the movie remains a favorite of mine.
I’ll take Engagement over Atonement, but I don’t know if that’s fair, either, having seen each only once.
Speaking of Ebert, Joel, he wrote a great letter yesterday:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/PEOPLE/994190446
Big fan of that guy, and I only agree with about half of his reviews. He’s a living legend as far as I’m concerned.
Sorry you got spammed there Daniel. I’ve tried to delete the repeats and put the remainder at the end of the thread so it can bask in a moment of glory before getting buried.
The problem with Ebert is that he likes 99% of what he sees, and he calls about 50 movies a year “masterpiece.” He has promoted movies that are absolutely dismal. On the other hand, he did win a pultizer-prize and his passion and enthusiasm is endless. Much the same could be said of Joel Siegel, who above everything else was a loving father and awonderful human being.
Thanks so much again Sartre, for that wonderful undeserved compliment.
Daniel, ENGAGEMENT is an outstanding film, but (for me) it is not within hailing distance of ATONEMENT, which I rate a masterpiece.
The subject of Ebert crops up around here from time to time with some people being on one side of the fence and some on the other.
I think like him or not, it’s fair to say he’s gotten a bit soft in recent years and as a taste maker he’s not always to be trusted.
On the other hand, he was one of the guys that introduced me to the idea that a movie could be more than just an evening’s entertainment…that a movie could be art, and for that he’ll always have a place at my dinner table.
Also, I enjoy his writings about the classics, particularly his “great movies” column.
“As long as you’re not trying to hype Vantage Point or Norbit, I’m pretty comfortable with the rare swing-and-a-miss from our man Craig.”
Hey Joel, Armond White seems to love Norbit and its star – “Murphy plays characters, unlike Sacha Baron Cohen’s one-note Borat which has been extravagantly compared to Peter Sellers. Murphy’s virtuosity surpasses both.”
So, has no one seen He Loves Me…He Loves Me Not? Bummer, I was hoping to be able to share my horrid, nightmarish memories with someone else.
Its kind of like Perfume: The Story of a Murderer in that the entire time you’re thinking, “Who the heck was this thing made for?”
I missed the Engagement and Atonement bandwagons. Engagement belonged in someone other than Jeunet’s hands - his ‘artsy’ sensibilities that worked so well in Amelie set the wrong tone for a WWI romance. Remember the cutesy slow-motion bomb going off in the hanger? Did that disturb no one else? And as for Atonement, I felt the constant presence of the novel throughout the film (I haven’t read it). The structure was more literary than cinematic, and that hurt it, in my estimation. An amazing first act, but quickly became bogged down in confusion afterwards.
By the way, has anyone mentioned how great Audrey looks in that shot?
Perfume was made for me Evan, and it seems for lots of europeans. The US box office was 2.2 mill and the worldwide one dominated by Germans and other continental europeans was some 133 mill.
I loved the book and thought the film was an excellent adaptation. Ben Whishaw struck me as an amazing new talent. The evocation of smell via visual cues worked really well for me, the production values were high, and the music stunning (particularly the piece Meeting Laura). I’m baffled by its apparent complete mismatch with American sensibility and taste, savage local reviews may have prevented many from even giving it a chance.
Yep, Evan the “infifferent for ATONEMENT claque” usually cites that reason for their issues with the film, but I found that an asset myself.
Again speaking of Ebert, I see his name in the morning papers, for making another inspiring comeback, as he will now commence viewing and writing reviews. Whether you like him or not as a critic, his numerous recoveries from surgaries and tenacity are things to really rally behind. An amazing person!
K, I think you have a point there.
As someone who didn’t love Atonement quite as much as its true fans (but I still liked it a lot), I thought the literary quality was one of its strengths, especially as it played right into one of its major themes.
No worries about the spam - hope I didn’t keep any LiC monkeys working late because of it.
“I think like him or not, it’s fair to say he’s gotten a bit soft in recent years and as a taste maker he’s not always to be trusted.
On the other hand, he was one of the guys that introduced me to the idea that a movie could be more than just an evening’s entertainment…that a movie could be art, and for that he’ll always have a place at my dinner table.”
Yes, Craig. As both you and Sam point out, he’s not someone whose “stars” mean as much anymore, but the fact that he kind of knows that is why I like him. In other words, he doesn’t make you feel like an idiot if you like a movie he doesn’t, or vice versa. Like most of us writing reviews, he throws out an opinion and tries to point out some interesting observations from a film.
He can really reach the non-academic crowd, too, and I think he probably opened a few of our eyes to the art of cinema early on, Craig. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t use big words; reading a review of his is like reading USA Today. Anyway, I appreciate that he’s faithfully provided widely accessible commentary for so many years.
“I’m baffled by [Perfume's] apparent complete mismatch with American sensibility and taste, savage local reviews may have prevented many from even giving it a chance.”
There is a fascinating sociological study in there somewhere, sarte. I tried to ‘get’ the film - its beautiful, Whishaw is a phenomenal talent, the whole visualization of scent is brilliant - but the core of the film did not connect in the slightest. I was flabbergasted by it, constantly thinking “Who greenlit this thing?” I wonder what the difference is between Europeans and Americans that could divide them down the center on a film like this. Really fascinating stuff.
Evan, I wish I had some plausible insights about the apparent cultural discrepancy with regards the film’s popularity and critical reception. All I can think is that Americans, even among the arthouse crowd, perhaps have less tolerance for downbeat or unconventionally uplifting endings in the context of a particular flavor of dark cinema.
As for that flavor, off the top of my head and speculating wildly it may involve elements of the Theatre of the Absurd and Jacobean tales. Black and/or absurdist stories that are often more harshly shocking and raise fundamental questions such as “is good an illusion”, “is life without meaning other than what we bring to it”. Yanks seem big on morality and immorality, but amorality not so much. I’m sure my guess work here could be readily challenged. But we’ve all observed different cinema cultures. American, English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Korean cinema etc. each has its own recognizably distinct flavor. The difficulty is distilling and articulating cultural differences with greater confidence.
I can’t wait to see Audrey Tautou later today.
I mean… The film. I can’t wait to see Priceless. Yeah.
Well, I’ve been meaning to get to this one, Craig, having seen it back on Friday.
This is undoubtedly an airy trifle, with less weight than the most hollow croissant, and as you say, Craig, it’s been appreciated that way.
Audrey Tautou is sublime, but so is Gad Elmaleh, who makes his almost saintly character grounded in realism. With Tautou’s eyes (”…melted dark chocolate…” is a sensually beautiful way to describe them! And very true!) working their way around him, her performance is just as important in making his character’s actions work as his are.
Anyway, I agree with your **** rating; this is a tremendously graceful, effortlessly pleasing film with a lot of fine comedic moments and a gently arresting love story at its light as a feather center.
I feel a little dopey giving such a light movie 4 stars, but goddamnit, sometimes you just want to be entertained and this one did it in a way that American movies are rarely able to pull off.
Glad you share my enthusiasm. I feel 24% less dopey.
Ah, come on there, Craig, I figured I could get you all the way to feeling 33% less dopey.
You’re right, few American movies can pull this kind of thing off. You’ve got to love the French for so many reasons.
And you were right that, despite its similar set-up, it takes a very different path from Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
“the mischievous eyes of melted dark chocolate”
Wow, was THAT ever true, as Alexander seconds. Great piece of writing throughout, Craig. I had a great time at this, though I felt it lagged a bit when it became serious in the 3rd quarter.
I was laughing the most when Jean was nervously at the breakfast table out on the patio that first morning. Gad Elmaleh was hysterical.
He really was hysterical, Daniel.
It does start to lag, but it remains more agile in its handling of its varied components than its inspiration.
Tautou became a crush for me three and a half years ago, and after this film I’ll follow her anywhere, anytime. (Heck, I already braved Da Vinci Code for her.) I hope she gets my love poem in the mail.
We’ve been on the subject lately of light entertainments and this was certainly one.
Of course, as I’ve said I have an irrational fondness for all things French so my opinion on this movie should be suspect.
Finally caught this as it is now showing at our local arthouse (I love my little independent theater to death, but boy are they slow on the programming). Great piece, especially your first two paragraphs - genius film writing there.
I think where you and I diverge the most is on Tatou’s character. Other than her gorgeous looks, I found her to be fairly unsympathetic, and enjoyed Elmaleh’s performance 10 times more. A cross between Adrien Brody, Tom Hanks, and Mr. Bean, I hope he manages some international cross-over action (much like Tatou did), as he is a brilliant actor.
And I didn’t get caught up in the film’s amorality, but in it’s lack of consistent morality. When the film asks you to care about Irene’s 11th hour rescue of Jean from ‘going all the way,’ it doesn’t work because they’ve both been whoring their way through the first two acts. I mean really, is a little more whoring that big of a deal at that point? The film’s internal logic breaks down at that juncture, deflating what could have been a thrilling climax.
All in all, though, it was a pleasant surprise, a “light trifle” as you put it.
You’re right, Evan, about Irene “saving” Jean from whoring himself out once again: at that point, your question–”…is a little more whoring that big of a deal at that point?”–is more of an objective one than a subjective one. No, in many ways it’s not that big of a deal, objectively speaking… but subjectively speaking, it finally does matter because she’s finally realized the truth of their relationship, namely that she’s in love with him. It’s one of those things that only makes the film more endearing to me: these two childish characters (especially Irene) grow up and wake up and in Irene’s case she finally changes her ways, and therefore changes Jean’s ways as well. Your description of Elmaleh’s performance is excellent, Evan, and I agree that he’s ultimately the heart of the film. Again, though, the fact that his character, Jean, sees so much in Elmaleh, beyond her beauty even, is kind of what makes her more sympathetic in a circuitous manner (while being undeniably unsympathetic in many instances of her ripping him off and being unreasonable in general). You get these brief glimpses of the angel Jean seems to see beneath the gold-digger, though I agree she’s definitely a tough nut to crack with quite the strong outer shell. The whole structure of Priceless doesn’t create much of a thrilling climax, you’re right, but it was amusing and ever so gently touching.
Thanks Evan. Glad you liked it even if you had a few issues. Part of what I liked about Audrey in the movie was precisely that dark edge…she wasn’t altogether sympathetic…a nice change from adorable Amelie. On the other hand, she was a more sympathetic character than Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and her turn around was just believable enough to win me over.
Also, yeah, everything Alexander just said.
Great points, Alexander. In thinking through it a bit more, it’s not so much that the characters have been whoring themselves, as that is an integral part of the story. I understand what you’re saying, that Irene has finally ‘grown up’ and seen the truth of their relationship. All of a sudden, sex is an deeply important facet of their relationship and not one to toss around casually. I think my beef comes with the mindset that the film itself is putting forward and that that mindset is inconsistent. The scene I referenced in my review specifically, the one where Irene has to ‘wear out’ Giles in order to meet up with Jean, is played for laughs, betraying the filmmakers casual attitude towards what is really happening on screen. If that scene had been handled differently, handled in a much more tragic and distressing manner, my complaints with the climax would evaporate. It isn’t that the characters evidence a shifting morality, but that the film itself does. It establishes rules early on that it then breaks later. Because the film itself (not the characters) seems to care little for their sexual indiscretions, how can it make me care all of a sudden at the end?
At this point you could say that I’m digging in too deep to a film that really is a light trifle, and mayhaps I am, but when you watch as many films as we do, it can be difficult to shut your brain down at times.
Still have not seen this, dammit.