Vincent & Theo (1990)

Very well executed

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

"Vincent and Theo" invents one sordid and revolting scene after another and succeeds only in cheapening the legacy of both Vincent and his brother Theo. Though distinctly argumentative and quirky, Vincent was exceedingly well read and well spoken, and had a deeply thoughtful and intellectual rationale for his passionate art, while Theo was an intelligent and personable individual who was successful and highly regarded. Both brothers are ruthlessly sullied and presented as pathetic individuals without any positive attributes in this horrid film. As another reviewer noted, the art works presented in this film are amateur cartoons of the originals, which is certainly not an insignificant detail in a film about a great artist. To understand Vincent and his brother Theo as complex and remarkable individuals, read "Van Gogh: The Life" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, a brilliantly researched and eloquently written biography, which is like living with Vincent through nearly every day of his entire life, enabled through the many letters preserved, not just between the brothers but among Vincent's entire family and other artists as well. The 1956 film, "Lust for Life", while admittedly quaint, offers a much more accurate biographical sketch in representing the significant life events of Vincent Van Gogh, and more accurately reveals the complexity of the characters. Further, "Lust for Life", uses actual reproductions of all of the original artwork presented, adding up to a very enjoyable and insightful film. "Vincent and Theo" is a ghastly, cheap horror flick that panders with its base vulgarity and is successful only in defiling the complex and fascinating story of Vincent and his beloved brother Theo.

I really enjoyed Pialat's VAN GOGH, a quiet, languid look at the last two months of the artist's life. While I wouldn't say Altman's take on it follows a standard biopic formula, it does lean more in that direction. It's got a lot more drama, a lot of more of those "jeez, this guy was nuts" moments (and a lot more too-clever "Ah ha, there he is painting that famous work!" bits). We see a number of angry, frustrated outbursts but don't really get a feel for what drove the man in his work or even in his torment. Still, it's a very watchable film with a compelling and not-too-hammy performance by Tim Roth. Paul Rhys is also good in a more subdued role. Although the film is generally rather conventional, there are a few interesting touches, most memorably the film's opening as one of his sunflowers paintings is auctioned for millions, intercut with a scene of the artist living in poverty. A little too on-the-nose, but effective. Interesting score as well.

Vincent & Theo, a 1990 film by director Robert Altman, may be the worst film ever made by a major director who has made a great film. Watching this two hour and twenty minute abomination left me, and my wife, stunned by its wretchedness. From the nonexistent narrative, to the indulgence of every artistic cliché imaginable by screenwriter Julian Mitchell, to possibly the worst soundtrack, by Gabriel Yared, ever used in a film (even worse than the estimably bad Robot Monster!), it's a wonder Altman ever crawled his way out from under the odium of this horrorshow, the nadir of his career- even more so than Popeye a decade before. Yet, his very next film, The Player, somehow relaunched his career. If I can indulge a cliché, maybe it really can be darkest before the dawn! I have still yet to see a successful film made on the life of a real artist, where all the clichés were not utilized. Perhaps the closest to that ideal was Amadeus, save for the fact that its protagonist was not Mozart, but Salieri, and the story was the latter's envy of the former's talent, and the truth was that that whole film was an almost total fiction.This film, however, does not even address the artistic impulse, and the paintings, which is the ONLY reason anyone gives a damn about Vincent Van Gogh, his suffering, or even his brother. Altman states, in the featurette, that what interested him were Vincent's letters to Theo, yet we NEVER get a hint of what they say, only one ridiculously melodramatic scene where a raving Theo bitches at his wife's opening up of the letters.Altman's always been at his best in ensemble pieces, like Nashville, M*A*S*H, The Player, and Gosford Park. He seems utterly adrift in this intense de facto two person stage play where both actors wildly overact, as if they were in a Roger Corman 1960s comic-horror version of Lust For Life, save with British accents, not Dutch.Vincent & Theo is a horrible film, in its own stolid way as bad as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, but it seems even worse because Spielberg's never come within a light year of a film as complex as Nashville. There is no progression nor insight into Vincent Van Gogh in this film, nor even his brother. When the brothers die we do not care, nor do we have an iota of insight into Altman's ideas on life and art. Vincent's graffiti that 'I AM THE HOLY SPIRIT. I AM WHOLE IN SPIRIT.' are not only dull and trite, but not given a shred of evidence one way nor the other by Altman. I could go on and on, and list a few dozen other reasons why this is easily Altman's worst film, and a terrible film, period, but hopefully I've earned enough trust with my readership that I can tell them to simply skip this one and watch Lust For Life instead. It's a better film, and more intellectually honest, to boot. OK, exhale!

This story is one of the most interesting I know. Unfortunately, the script misses the real drama of this important life. But never mind. The real art of the film is in two achievements:--Altman frames and colors his shots through Vincent's eyes. This is the most sensitive use of the cinematic palette I've seen, and makes the experience singular. I saw it on a TV, which I hate to do. I would travel to see this properly projected.--Time Roth gives interprets Vincent wonderfully. If you ignore the lines, which are vapid, and concentrate on his being, it's quite nuanced. He is meek in body, but passionate in expression. The teeth and pipe are great.