Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 14 of Scream 3 (0:51:25-0:55:33)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 14 of Scream 3
Length: 4mins 8secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley, Gale Weathers, Martha Meeks (Heather Matarazzo), Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), and Detective Wallace.
Pop Culture References:

• The Godfather Part III and The Return of the Jedi (Used as trilogy examples)
• Reservoir Dogs (Randy describes a potential crime scene this way)

Are you ready for the worst scene in the entire franchise? Gosh, I HOPE SO!

Oh my gawd. Do you know what's behind that door? WELL DO YOU? It's something far scarier than Ghostface could ever be. And given it's daylight on a heavily populated location, the film's use of the "boo scare" reveal just makes the following character introduction ever worse. Sigh. It gives me great pains to present to you...

"Don't shoot, I'm only 17!"

MARTHA MEEKS AND THE HIDEOUS GOLD ANIMAL PRINT PANTS FROM HEEEEEELLLL!!

No, but seriously, Martha is awful, and her clothes are awful, and this scene is awful, and Heather Matarazzo is awful (in this), and Martha is awful, and her clothes are awful, and her clothes are awful, and Martha is awful.

Well, you get the picture. Literally.

Not only did they have to give Heather Matarazzo an entirely terrible character that wears entire terrible clothes and exists for entirely terrible expository reasons, but they make the actress say ludicrous rubbish dialogue like the bonmot underneath the screencap. I just can't with this scene, you guys. Every single time I watch this movie I skip it. Well, that is unless I'm screening it for somebody for the first time and they've never witnessed the shocking sights that it holds in its tight, leopard print grip. *shudder*

Well done anonymous police extras. I feel much safer knowing Heather Matarazzo can't stab me to death now that you're around. :/

"What are you doing here?"
"There's something you guys should see."

No seriously, what is she doing there and how did she get onto the lot? "I'm the real life sister of somebody portrayed in Stab" probably doesn't get a lot of gorky 17-year-olds onto film sets these days. Could she not express post the video rather than jumping out of film set trailers in retina-burning pants? SHOULDN'T SHE BE IN SCHOOL INSTEAD OF GALLIVANTING AROUND LOS ANGELES?!? "We miss you in Woodsboro," she says. Yeah, I'm sure they're really disappointed that a new serial killing Ghostface is on the scene and has decided to take up residence in another town. Really disappointed. That does remind me of one of Scream 4's most potent moments, when a crime scene onlooker goes all The Birds on Neve Campbell's Sidney and blames her for bringing the killings with her. But we're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't? This scene has plenty more awful stuff to go yet.

RANDY!

And yet still one of the worst decisions they could have made. It's just silly, isn't it? I mean, this shit is morbid for Martha to be holding on to that tape just in case another killer comes around, isn't it?

"Toldja I'd make a movie some day! Well, if you're watching this tape it means, as I feared, I did not survive these killings here at Windsor College. And that giving up my virginity to to Karen Colcheck at the video store was probably not a good idea."
"Karen Colcheck?"
"Yes, Karen Colcheck."
"Creepy Karen?"
"Shut up! She was a sweet person. We were working late, putting away some videos in the porno section and, ya know, shit happens."

Oh lord, the video tape back and forth between Dewey and Randy! :/

I'm glad you find your goody future husband's banter so funny, Gale, but while you're here in this scene, I think we can all agree that we'd much rather be watching Gale & Gale Investigations on another channel.

I'm not gonna lie, guys. I'm debating whether to even include Scream 3's "trilogy" rules. I mean, it's just so silly and tacked on. This would have at least made more sense if, as Scream 3 was originally meant to do, it was set in Woodsboro. Alas.

"The reason I am here is to help you so that my death won't be in vein. So that my life's work will help save some other poor soul from being mutilated. If this killer does come back and he's for real, there are a few things you gotta remember. Is this simply another sequel? Well, if it is: same rules apply. Here's the critical thing. If you find yourself dealing with an unexpected back-story, and a preponderance of expedition then the sequel rules do not apply. Because you are not dealing with a sequel. You are dealing with the concluding chapter... of a trilogy!

That's right, it's a rarity in the horror field, but it does exist. It's a force to be reckoned with, because true trilogies are all about going back to the beginning and discovering something that wasn't true from the get go. Godfather, Jedi, all revealed something that wasn't true that we thought was true. So if it is a trilogy you're dealing with here are some super trilogy rules...

"1. You've got a killer who's going to be super human. Stabbing him won't work, shooting him won't work. Basically in the third one you gotta cryogenically freeze his head, decapitate him, or blow him up.
2. Anyone including the main character can die. This means you, Sid. It's the final chapter. It could be fucking Reservoir Dogs by the time this thing's through.
3. The past will come back to bite you in the ass. Whatever you think you know about the past, forget it. The past is not at rest. Any sins you think were committed in the past are about to break out and destroy you.

And he goes on to wish them good luck and, "for some", a see you soon invitation. Of course, nobody from this group actually did die, nor did the finale end up like Reservoir Dogs. If anything, Scream 4 adhered to the rules of Scream 3 much more than Scream 3 did. Funny to note that there was originally a fourth rule, "never be alone." It was taken out because, hilariously, Gale goes off by herself (and the others let her without a fuss, curiously) as soon as Martha leaves.

An amber-hued hair clip. Seriously. AND THOSE PANTS OH MY GAWD! Of course, it just keeps better and better worse and worse.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How long until this late '90s, early '00s fashion trend takes off again?

AND THEN THEY JUST SEND HER ON HER WAY!

Sorry for getting so shouty, but it bears shouting. I mean, she shows up out of the blue in Hollywood, shows them a video tape, and then just walks off into the (figurative) sunset. Hell, I'd be thinking she was a suspect. Especially given what her brother's own video said about the past and the beginning and things never being what they seem. Is it too crazy for these guys to assume (or at least Gale since she doesn't personally know Martha) that maybe Randy was a puppeteer from the very start and now he's using his meek sister (lol, MEEK!) to play out some of his dirty work?

You guys, I just came up with the better ending to Scream 3. Sigh.

Even if that wasn't the case, wouldn't they feel a bit strange about sending this 17-year-old off by herself amongst Hollywood as a serial killer is on the loose specifically targeting people with connections (however fictional) to the original Woodsboro?

Sigh.

Thank gawd that's over because one scene later we revisit Gale & Gale Investigations, which is basically what I want my life to be like, okay?

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14. Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, End Credits

Scream 3
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 12 of Scream 3 (0:36:54-0:47:26)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 12 of Scream 3
Length: 10mins 32secs
Primary Characters: Dewey Riley, Gale Weathers, Jennifer Jolie, Steven Stone, Angelina Tyler, Tom Prinze, and Ghostface
Pop Culture References:

• None so overtly, but I'm sure there are plenty!

Weird double feature idea: Peter Deming Lensed Hollywood Flicks from the Early 2000s! There's Scream 3 and there's also Mulholland Drive. The nighttime shots of Los Angeles certainly look the same.


"Is this a wrap party of this a wrap party? Scene 34, Maureen's murder flashback."
"I never liked that scene."
"That's because you weren't in it."
Not for nothing, a lesser franchise would have done a scene like that by now, and thank gawd they never did. Obviously they couldn't have given the reveal of the climax being facts about Maureen death, but they still could have done one at some point. I shudder to think. I do like that the next joke is about "the Prescott house flashback", as if the entirely of Stab 4 is just made up of Sidney returning to Woodsboro and having flashback after flashback.

I think we all remember where we were when we first caught a glimpse of Matt Keeslar, don't we? Mine was Waiting for Guffman and boy that was a sight! He had a great run, actually, with Guffman, Urbania, and The Last Days of Disco. Sadly, I think he expected Scream 3 to be a breakout role for him. A look at his IMDb profile shows a lot of television one. One suspects many of them are pilots that never got picked up. Sad. He's such a good looking man. Such a good looking man.

Some time ago when I sat my friend Suze down to watch all three Scream films (so, "some time ago" was before Scream 4 came out at least) because she'd never seen any of them, and by the third film came around we just spent most of the time mocking the clothes because MY GAWD WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT WARDROBE DEPARTMENT. It's actually very amusing on Jennifer Jolie because her character so flamboyant and over the time that you can totally see her wearing clothes like that, even if they are horrendous most of the time (She'd be on Go Fug Yourself daily). Gale, though?

Yikes!

I seem to remember when this scene happened we both burst into tears of laughter. Look at her! Consider for a moment what she is wearing and I dare you not to laugh. I mean, despite the fact that they're just heinously ugly to look at, are those red leather pants not the most inappropriate attire one could wear when there's a killer on the loose? And that bag. Oh my lordy, that bag! As if her hair wasn't bad enough...

I know Scream 3 is about Hollywood, but I'm surprised they put in so much smoking. I have nothing to say about it per se other than I think it's curious and somewhat uncomfortable.



I have nothing to say about these shots either. Except maybe "has Parker Posey ever played a mid-century vampire?"

Review: Mirror Mirror

Mirror Mirror

Dir. Tarsem Singh

Country: USA

Aus Rating: PG

Running Time: 106mins

With each of his first three feature films, famed music video director Tarsem Singh has gone by a new name. At first it was Tarsem Singh, then just Tarsem, and then Tarsem Singh Dhandwar. For this fourth film, the updated fairy tale (some would call it “revisionist” since that’s the hot word these days, like “reboot”, “prequel” and others before it) Mirror Mirror sees him revert back to Tarsem Singh and whether the man is secretly trying to convey a hidden message by doing so or not, the man has done enough in my eyes to change his name to Elizabeth Taylor Fancypants McGregor and I wouldn’t care one iota. He is such a rare gift in Hollywood, with films so richly decadent and a feast for the eyes that – to take a page from his latest – I routinely find myself falling under the spell of.

Whereas his first and third films were violent otherworldly fantasies (The Cell and Immortals), his second and fourth features have been buoyantly lavish fairy tales. Mirror Mirror sees Singh veering away from the original, globetrotting fairy tale of The Fall, MIrror Mirror takes the much more familiar tale of Snow White and the seven dwarves and spins it into a comical farce, sumptuously designed and hilariously bonkers in equal measure. First and foremost a movie for kids, its pleasures are not bound to one’s age, instead its rhythmic absurdity should prove a delight for those of any age with a penchant for bright-eyed, candy-coloured visual madness. Curmudgeons will surely find its big-grinned magic hard to resist; its somewhat off-kilter marketing campaign hopefully setting many up for a world of surprise.

Mirror Mirror more or less follows the traditional tale of Snow White that we know from the Brothers Grimm as well as the Walt Disney animation of the 1930s. This time Snow White is kept prisoner in the castle by her evil stepmother after the disappearance of her father, The King. Upon daybreak outside the castle walls Snow happens upon a near-naked Prince, the victim of bandits who reside within the forest. Basically, you can guess what happens after that as Snow White ends up living with the famed seven dwarves before enacting revenge on the Evil Queen, reclaiming her father’s kingdom as well as the love of her charming Prince.

What makes Mirror Mirror so special and not just a tired, flat retread done with enough bells and whistles to feel unique is the flare with which Singh has gone about it. When the term “kid’s movie” cans sound like a dirty word for cinephiles, he has turned the dial up to eleven and embraced the inherent zaniness of the plot. Unafraid to capitalise on the artificial idea at its core, Mirror Mirror fills its frame with an abundance of weirdness, the kind of which is rarely found in a mainstream live action movie for children. The sound editing and visual effects are particularly cartoonish and risk ridicule in being so. The cast, too, are game for the challenge and all elevate their performances to a degree of camp rarely seen. Julia Roberts, particularly, as the evil Queen Clementianna is clearly relishing the chance to be so openly playful with her image, and Armie Hammer is truly delightful as the slapstick charmer. The Queen’s rather overt horniness of his frequent disrobed appearance is one of the film’s most kookily amusing running gags.

As Snow White herself, Lily Collins is a lovely screen presence and her porcelain skin certainly speaks to the story’s origins. I expect a grand Hollywood death match between Lily Collins and the Lynn Collins of John Carter where only one wins fame and fortune. If Lily is willing to work on such obviously nutso productions like this then I hope she wins (we’ll forget about Abduction, okay?)

Of course, as all Singh films have been in the past, Mirror Mirror’s true claim to fame will be the enduring fabulousness of costume design Eiko Ishioka. The Japanese design legend passed away earlier this year and just six months after hitting us with Greek mythology chic in Immortals, she has done perhaps her finest work since winning an Academy Award for Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The Academy may as well go and engrave her name on a posthumous Oscar right now since the extravagant duds on display here are truly a work of stunning art. The seemingly never-ending parade of overflowing ball gowns, stuffed shirt pomp, frilly lace collars, exquisitely tailored corsetry and stunning jackets (that yellow ribbon jacket is rather to die for) in every colour you could possible imagine – the “color designer” gets their own singular on screen credit! – are a sight to behold and truly a majestic piece of fairy tale couture that will send fans of costume design into frequent fits of giddy joy. There’s even a fashion montage that feels like it was personally put in just for me. A Singh/Ishioka collaboration was always an event and the next film of this man’s will just not feel the same without Ishioka’s miraculous vision.

It takes a lot to truly get me grinning from ear to ear for a film’s entire runtime, but from the weird animated opening, the bizarre yet thrilling mid-film marionette action sequence, the appropriately bonkers make-up and art direction, and, yes, the enjoyable sight of Armie Hammer sans clothes, I couldn’t resist this film’s oddball charms. The upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman may have the gritty pop culture cachet, but Mirror Mirror’s childlike mentality shouldn’t be overlooked. In all fairness, Mirror Mirror is a blast that recalls the best works of Walt Disney whilst living very firmly in the present. A-

Polka Dots & Sunglasses: The Costume Design of Les Diabolique

With so many voices out there on the internet - the last thing we need is another one writing the same ol' retrospective review of the same ol' film that everyone already knows is a classic - I thought it might be interesting to begin looking at specific elements of some of the films I watch, both old and new. I hope it inspires me to write more about some of the great films I see, and inspires you dear readers to try and admire the unexpected.

This entry contains spoilers, granted for a film from 1955, but I successfully avoided any so maybe you should too if you've never seen Les Diaboliques! I can't recall any other films that actively end with text telling the viewer to be silent about what they just saw, that's how blind you should go into this film.

"Vintage". It's a word that gets thrown about a lot today in relation to fashion. Whether it actually is vintage, or just has the same musky, old-timey appeal of something that is, it's become an adjective to describe items of clothes that one would associate with another time and place. Henri-Georges Clouzot's 1955 noir horror, Les Diaboliques, isn't a period film at all - or, at least, I don't think it was at the time - but I couldn't help but think of this phrase, "vintage", whilst ogling the delicious costumes that appear throughout. Despite featuring no credited costume designer, the duds of Les Diabolique are a masterclass of (at the time) contemporary costume design, as outfits of various shapes, colours and designs help inform the characters that wear them. It was just one of many beautiful aspects to this French classic that impressed me upon watching Clouzot's film for the first time last evening.

A black and white checkered dress - with fan - worn by Véra Clouzot in Les Diabolique

The first costume I couldn't take my eyes off was the gorgeous checkered dress that Véra Clouzot wears, shown above. Almost like houndstooth in pattern, it's a stunning sundress that I can easily see being worn today with, perhaps, just a little less formal structure.The fan may be a bit much, but this outfit is just the beginning a trend for the meek Mme Delassalle whose wardrobe consists entirely of outfits that pair black with white. Utilising the good ol' concept of white representing good and pureness, whereas black represents evil and "the devil" (the translation of the title, Les Diaboliques), the costuming of Ms Clouzot is clearly a way of symbolising her character's dangerous dalliance between the two. Later on in the film she wears loose-fitting white shirt with deep v-neck and a long black dress, and then later a white dress shirt and skirt with black shall. Always conservative - Mme Delassalle is a school teacher after all - with her hair braided and tied at the back, she never full embraces the colour of white for her entire outfit until the climactic scenes in the school hallways once she has confessed to her crimes. It's a simple motif, and occasionally very literal - hello Star Wars - but given the very moral discussion of right and wrong, it's a motif that works.


A black and white polka dot dressing gown that even I want!
My favourite costume worn by Véra Clouzot is the black and white polka dot dressing gown warn at several occasions throughout the movie (I do love when a character rewears clothes, it gives a film such a sense of authenticity). Seen up above this paragraph, it's a simple piece of costume that is not only gorgeous to look at, but character defining as well. It's unassuming nature - no glimpse of sex appeal there - perfectly encapsulates the mademoiselle's attitude as a somewhat repressed woman who isn't interested in dressing for anybody other than herself. I admit that even I want a black and white polka dot dressing gown now, preferally one made of material that looks as smoothly elegant as the one shown here. The gloss and the reflection of light make me suspect it's made of a very luxurious fabric and, good grief, wouldn't we all want that on us morning and night?

Simone Signoret, as Clouzot's partner in crime, also gets the black = evil, white = good treatment, except she doesn't come out looking quite so rosy (er, mixing up my colour metaphors there, aren't I?) Pictured here to the left, she is always seen wearing outfits of black, charcoal and dark grey. Yes, I do realise I am discussing colours that are obviously in the spectrum of "black and white" and that the cinematography couldn't determine whether she's wearing crimson or purple or black or gold, but it's obvious to tell she has been deliberately given darker hues to Clouzet's Mme Delassalle because she is ultimately the far guiltier party of the two. Usually dressed in long body-hugging dresses that provide a sex appeal that her friend never does, Signoret's Nicole Horner is frequently the more mysterious of the two and given far less opportunities to show remorse through her costumes. She's a vixen and proud of it. I simply adore the sunglasses she wears in the early scenes at the school that make for effortless cool alongside her near bleach blond hair and dangling cigarette. It's a look I've seen replicated many times in recent years, although one has to suspect that those recreating this look - regular everyday women and celebrities alike - know what era they're basing their looks on.

"So Frenchy, so chic!" goes the saying - although does anybody make reference these days to a "Prince of Wales suit"? I doubt that - and Les Diaboloque proves that. Of the film that they inhabit? Divine. A tingly fright factory that garners scares out of our own imaginations, it's final scenes made my entire body freeze. Without a single peep of a musical score to telegraph the audience's fears and emotions (apart from the opening credits, that is - did Phantom of the Opera ruin organ music for everyone?) it obviously works best if you don't know the twists to come (so I hope you paid heed to that spoiler warning up top if you intended to watch it), but it's such a finely crafted piece of work that repeat viewings would hold such a delicious richness to them. Something the patently ridiculous-looking remake surely can't achieve. Unless Kathy Bates punching someone in the face is your idea of fine craftmanship... actually, maybe it is worth a look after all.

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Dir. David Yates
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 140mins

Two thirds through the seventh film in the Harry Potter franchise, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) tries to explain why he’s soaking wet and holding a legendary sword that will help him destroy ancient artefacts: “It’s a long story.” And boy is it ever!

Read the rest at Trespass
It was difficult to write about this penultimate film in the Harry Potter franchise. I liked it well enough, but almost everything that is singular and unique to this film, and thus more demanding of attention, fell closer to the negative side of things for me. I tried to steer it closer to the "generally positive" view that I have of the movie, but I'm not going to spend an entire paragraph talking about Stuart Craig's (yet again) spectacular production design since I've been saying that since at least film number 3 in the series (the first two were so bad that I don't remember a single thing about them other than indeed how bad they were).


Speaking of which, as happy as I am for the actors - especially Emma Watson, who I want to see go on to have a career that will allow her to not simply be known as the girl that played Hermione Granger - to nearly be done with the films, they've all been given the chance to pursue other projects (Rupert Grint is on screen in Aussie cinemas right now in Wild Target with Emily Blunt and his Deathly Hallows co-star Bill Nighy), I'll be happiest most of all for Stuart Craig, the utterly fantastic production designer who has done absolutely nothing but Harry Potter films since 2001.

His work has constantly been stellar - my favourites would be Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, he clearly had a great time designing the interiors or Delores Umbrage's pink den - and it will be good to finally see him return to other fare. Let's not forget that Craig had won three Academy Awards before taking on the monstrous Harry Potter duties. He won for Gandhi, Dangerous Liaisons and The English Patient, plus nominations for The Elephant Man, The Mission and Chaplin (as well as Philosopher's Stone and Goblet of Fire), so it's obvious that this man is too talented to be held down by just one franchise.

Similarly, Jany Temime has more or less been stuck doing the costume design for the series since Prisoner of Azkaban in 2004. While she's been able to work outside the series - most notably In Bruges and Children of Men - maybe now she can finally use her magic (no pun intended) on something else that's really deserving of her talents and strengths as a costumer designer.

The final film arrives in July 2011 and I suppose others out there in the land of the internet will be revisiting the films a lot throughout the next seven months. You won't hear much out of me until then, however, at which point I'll be celebrating that it's finally come to an end. No matter how great Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is, it will be time to hang up the wand and the invisibility cloke and move on. 'til then...

Five Shots: Red Shoes

Review: Coco avant Chanel

Coco avant Chanel
Dir. Anne Fontaine
Year: 2009
Aus Rating: PG
Running Time: 105mins

A lot of the time a biopic is a biopic is a biopic. By mere virtue of existing, one must assume that they know where it is going. They don't make movies about famous people whose lives were not interesting, and in the world of filmmakers, "interesting" usually equals things such as "lived in poverty", "addicted to [insert substance of choice]" and "fights through adversity and tragedy." Anne Fontaine's splendidly made Coco avant Chanel (quite simply meaning "Coco before Chanel") follows the blueprint to a tee, and proves to be the root of the film's problems.

Stop if you've heard this one before; A young girl is made an orphan in the French countryside and goes to live with nuns. She grows up and begins to sing in sleazy bars for money before deciding to shack up with a wealthy count who she feels keeps her trapped like a cage, not letting her creativity spread. She falls in love with another man, a love that is destined to end in tragedy before Coco rises from the ashes from her pain and conquers the world. Yes, it sounds an awful lot like La Vie en Rose, the biopic of Edith Piaf from two years back. Coco avant Chanel is better than that one, that's for sure.


The newer film, however, suffers from similar problems - thankfully hacked up editing is not one of them - including an ungrateful lead character who comes off as incredibly unappealing and one that left me asking why all these men found her so gosh darn irresistible. If somebody would like to explain this to me then I'll listen. The film's formulaic plot developments prove disappointing to. There is nothing in Coco that you cannot telegraph from the opening scenes in the orphanage. And that's even without knowing anything about Chanel other than that she designed clothes.

It is, however, the clothes that set this movie apart. Not just the gorgeous duds that all the characters get to parade around in from start to finish - Catherine Leterrier sure did have her work cut out for her and she succeeds with flying colours - but also the scenes involving Coco designing and creating these beautiful garments. I suspected there was much more passion behind these scenes than there were behind others. The way the camera lingers over Coco's hand and she traces patterns and tears away at fabrics and runs her fingers across expensive lace. It is a shame that there was not more of it. The final scene, a fashion show down a mirrored staircase, is divine and it would have been a more interesting spot to pick up the story of her life at.


As Coco Chanel Audrey Tautou gives a performance that is neither good nor bad, just merely adequate, although she impresses towards film's end when she is actually called upon to show some emotions in her face. There are worse things that spending 100 or so minutes looking at Alessandro Nivola, but here he doesn't register. Best in film honours go to Emmanuelle Devos as an actress and Benoît Poelvoorde as Coco's wealthy count. Both should have been given more. All the technicals are ace, too. From Leterrier's aforementioned costumes, Christophe Beaucarne's gorgeous cinematography and Alexandre Desplat's original music score.

Unfortunately Fontaine has not done enough with Coco's story to make it worth telling on anything more than a visual level. And even then, little is put in to explore the artistic process that goes into it all. The movie has horses and castles and pretty clothes and it's very easy on the eye and I was surprised when the film ended because it certainly didn't feel like it had been over 100 minutes long - a problem many films have is being too long and the audience knowing it - but there's little here that will come to define Coco Chanel to viewers. C+