Touches You

Expected more

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Although not mentioned in the IMDb profile, this film was also based on artist Francoise Gilot's work entitled, "Life with Picasso". In an interview with Charlie Rose, Gilot emphasized that her book's title came from the French "vivre" meaning to live or life in general, rather than the possessive "My Life". In interview, Gilot likened herself to a camera taking in the life around them.Having said this, it must be understood that the screenplay was not written as a documentary on the artistic process, which is why it does not focus on the individual paintings or the techniques of Picasso, Gilot, Matisse or Braque, all of whom are noted masters of twentieth century art. Rather it is an important film for other reasons, as a character study as artist as a whole which a less insightful or sensitive observer might mistake for tedium or sentimentality. But even more significant is the film's revelation of the importance of autonomy and benevolence in the life of an artist.

Anthony Hopkins is a very gifted actor,nobody can deny,but ,he was beginning to do any job going:playing Hannibal,Nixon and Picasso,it's much ,too much !Besides,James Ivory 's majestic talent ("Howards end" "remains of the day" "A room with the view" "Maurice") had inexorably waned."Jefferson in Paris" was already unsatisfying,smug and overblown.Still,it was entertaining."Surviving Picasso' is not.Only five minutes -let's be generous- are given over to the process of creation.The essential revolves around Picasso's relationship with women;this is neither rewarding nor entertaining,being trite,hollow and devoid of emotion , violence or/and tenderness.Word to the wise:people interested in Picasso's art -which is more interesting than his private life!who cares?- should try to see Henri-Georges Clouzot 's "le mystère Picasso" (1956):Unlike Ivory,Clouzot films the REAL Picasso while he is creating.He paints on a sheet of glass and we can follow every lick of paint.

It's a pity that many of the user comments on this movie are simply a vehicle for people's dislike of Picasso, and that they treat the film as though it were a documentary. Picasso may have been as sex-mad, egocentric, paranoid and capricious as any Hollywood star (think Chaplin); but first and foremost he was a prodigious artist, who transformed our view of visual art, and dealt with some of the great themes of western culture. And presumably it was those latter qualities which drew women to him, in the same way that women have been drawn to successful, powerful men of dubious character since the dawn of time.The movie and Hopkins' performance are certainly successful in displaying Picasso's human weaknesses; but there is a failure to adequately convey Picasso's enormous creative power, a weakness compounded by the fact that the makers were not allowed to use much of his work in the film. I see the film as a well made, excellently acted, but partial (in both senses of the word) portrait of the artist. Its real focus is the women in his life, especially Francoise Gilot, and on the two-way exploitative nature of the relationship between a man of this kind and his mistresses/wives.

A closer look at the controversial life of world famous painter Picasso. A guy who's only intentions are women - a guy to whom marriage doesn't mean anything. The movie isn't too great at all. Actually many times it's boring. But there's a good reason to watch it: Anthony Hopkins, one of the greatest actors alive. Vote: 6 out of 10.