The Man Who Cried (2000)

The Man who cried is a good film in almost all aspects: the cinematography is great, the ensemble cast don't disappoint, and the music in this film is just great. However, the substantial, the vital part to any film, the story, is one of the very worst that i've ever seen. Seriously, it is that bad. The character development is very very weird. The premise of the film is weak and it seems to suddenly disappear until the last ten minutes of the film. And in this runtime of about 70 minutes, a bunch of nonsense and totally out-of- context situations starts to going on. That's a lot of pointless moments in the film, situations which starts conflicts that are never solved , nonsense situations, totally silly sequences without any continuity, and etc, etc,etc.I honestly don't know what goes on in the head of writer and director Sally potter. I think that is almost impossible to anyone who read this saying that the script was bad, because frankly, it was awful and atrocious. This need to be seen to be believed. So, as i already said, the technical aspects of the film were good. It just don't has a story at all. And if you're smart, you'll follow recommendation to not watch this grotesque and sometimes even unintentionally laughable film. 4.0/10

The Man Who Cried (2000)On paper, this looks unstoppable: in the 1920s, a Russian Jewish family is torn by war and poverty into pieces, the father leaving his little girl behind as he seeks a better life in America. This is the story of the girl, who flees, with some luck, to England, and then as a young woman to Paris, seemingly in search of her father. But she is delayed there long enough to be involved in an acting troupe, falls in love with a gypsy horseman, watches Paris fall to the Nazis, and escapes to America, at last, to find her father.How in the world could this go wrong? There are even three truly stellar actors in lead roles: Cate Blanchett (as a Russian expatriate dancer in Paris), Johnny Depp (the Gypsy, of course), and John Turturro (an Italian opera singer, well done!). And the photography, by French cinematographer Sacha Vierny in her last film, and the production design, by Carlos Conte, who worked on Kite Runner and Motorcycle Diaries, among recent films, are terrific, almost self-sustaining.But somehow it is slow going stuff. It isn't lyrical, some voyage through disaster and beauty, and it even avoids sympathy for many of the characters, who naturally fall to one fate or another in this topsy turvy environment. Partly it's the script--there is little said, and very little said of interest, probing or fascinating or moving. And it's been said before, of course--the story, taken in its broadest sense, is that familiar terrible story that needs retelling, but with greater intensity and respect. Again, it looks good on paper.So, director Sally Potter is in charge here, and she wrote it, too. I really liked the surprise and invention of Orlando, which she directed, but that, too, was flawed, and it's probably her best film. The rest of her resume, that I've seen or heard about, is paltry stuff. So watch this knowing it has the chops, the goods, and the best of intentions, but it will only feel amazing in small parts, which never quite get rolling into a meaningful whole, including the calculated and inevitable tear-jerking end.

This film wasted the talents of several terrific actors; most notably, John Turtorro, Cate Blanchette, Johnny Depp and Harry Dean Stanton. Christina Ricci was serviceable, but was probably miscast. The direction/editing I found very choppy which made the film difficult to follow as it marred the pacing. It appears that the budgeting did not take into account spending adequate money or time on the editing portion of the film. I also felt that the plot was erratic and never fully developed characters as it should have. Cate Blanchette as Lola turned in her typical great acting with a flawless Russian accent, but it was difficult to know where she fit into the larger plot at times. Turturro's character was sort of a caricature of an Opera Diva and he was laughable at times especially when protesting being upstaged by horses. Overall the film was visually well done but fell flat in substance.

Dreamy camera work, and a spirited performance by a luscious cast, aren't quite enough to save this confused and almost incoherent wartime melodrama about a romantic Jewish showgirl finding love and danger in Nazi occupied Paris.Here is a fascinating example of how casting people can overlook the most basic physical facts about the actors. Christina Ricci and Cate Blanchett are both stunningly beautiful and breathtakingly gifted. But if you check your IMDb stats, you'll notice that Cate Blanchett is more than ten years older than Christina, and a good six inches taller.What does this mean? Well, it means that when you see them together, Cate is obviously the one you'd pick as the big sister, the wise and protective mother figure. She towers over Christina like C3P0 standing next to R2D2. But in the story, Cate's character Lola is supposed to be a silly, empty-headed floozy while Christina's character Suzie is an intense, passionate, deeply determined young heroine. Neither actress is right in terms of age or appearance. Cate is too tall, too noble, too elegant and aristocratic a physical presence to be cast as a trashy, comically inept gold digger. And Christina Ricci is too tiny, too fresh-faced, and too physically undeveloped to be Cate's equal.At the same time, film maker Sally Potter seems absolutely indifferent to the realism of the story, and the storytelling problems of pace, suspense, tension and credibility. While little Suzie drifts dreamily into an almost mystical affair with a hunky Gypsy, (Johnny Depp) the needy and greedy Lola clumsily ropes in a rich but comically cruel and stupid opera star. (John Turturro, the only major character who's perfectly cast in type and ability.) Problem is, Suzie's dreamy affair doesn't really seem that heroic. She doesn't help her Gypsy friends escape the Nazis. She doesn't even help the nice Jewish lady who lives downstairs. All she does is moon around looking serious and dreamy. She hates the anti-Semitism of the cowardly opera singer, but she doesn't really do anything to counter it. She doesn't even warn Lola not to marry the guy, or tell her she could find lots of better men.The whole story would have worked much, much better if Cate Blanchett and Christina Ricci had been cast better according to size, age, looks and type. Cate should have been the rich, self-assured, and aristocratic wife of a Vichy French banker or politician. She hears Chrstina sing and is captivated by her waif-like looks and pure, child like voice. The two become friends, almost like sisters, but then Cate, who's good at heart but rather bored with her much older husband, starts up an affair with that stunning Gypsy lad. For her he's just a fun fling, but young Christina falls for him on a deeper level, wanting to help him save his people from the Nazis. When spoiled Cate finds out her little sister has stolen her man, she flies into a horrible jealous rage and tells the Nazis everything -- but at the last minute she comes to the rescue and dies nobly, allowing Christina and her Gypsy to escape to America on the last boat out of Marseilles.Now THAT'S a movie!