At the risk of simply doing another "me-too" review I'll try to mention some points about the movie without needlessly repeating what other have said. (There are currently eight others.) It seems to me that so far I'm the only one who has actually read the original story since I'm the only one upset by the movie's changed ending.
But before I tear into the wretched ending I'll talk about some other things first. Any filmmaker who tries to turn a Bradbury story into a film faces a doubly difficult task. It's never easy to turn (i.e. stretch) any short story into a feature length movie and it's even harder to put a Bradbury story on film, as anyone who has read him can easily attest.
The movie's story is based upon his short story "In a Season of Calm Weather", originally published in Playboy in 1957 and later anthologized in his book A Medicine For Melancholy. Several of his other works have been turned into movie projects with very uneven results: Fahrenheit 451 as done by François Truffaut (pretty good), The Illustrated Man (not bad), and last and certainly least, The Martian Chronicles (positively dreadful). This movie would have been much better if they hadn't ruined the ending.
In order to stretch the movie out the directors included several extended scenes of Picasso's paintings coming to life and an overly long bull fighting sequence. The animated sequences are quite good but I can't help but feel they last as long as they do to fill the empty space between the live action parts. Not only were they too long but the same sequences were used over and over again and seemed too repetitive. Ditto for the bull fighting part (included here to help explain Picasso's fascination with the subject). It may be a good idea to go make dinner during the bull fight, if only to miss its grisly conclusion when the poor bull dies in bloody agony after being gored by the bull fighter's sword.
The movie begins with the couple attending what would have been considered a hip (but ultimately vapid) San Francisco party, where George sees a woman with a tattoo of an eye on her neck (get it? Picasso?) and an artist is selling paintings of single alphabetical characters (I really liked his lower case "a"). The old band Sopwith Camel makes the briefest of appearances (if you blink you'll miss them), which is a shame, since they are one of the many bands from 60s that have been sadly forgotten. The party, along with his disillusionment with his pointless career, is what leads George and his wife to go on their extended journey to look for Picasso.
It should be remembered that this more of a 60s European film and less of a typical Hollywood flick. Movies like this move slowly and many Americans, particularly today's generation (who rate a movie by its explosions and body counts), will find it boooooring. This was one of the first big movies the great cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond worked on after he had escaped from behind the Iron Curtain. You really can't see much distinctive work here although he did his best work on big budget movies like Close Encounters. The film score by Michel Legrand is fine but it seemed at times a bit too much, especially during the extended animated sequences. Again, this kind of thing is not unexpected, given the time this movie was made.
Now about the ending. I would have normally given this movie a high mark, like a 7 out of 10, because I like movies of this type. However, the ending absolutely ruined this movie for me and I am at a loss to explain how it came it about. As far as the movie goes, the ending is not inconsistent with the progress of the story, but it is essentially a 180° reverse of how Bradbury ended his story. The story's ending was meant to be bittersweet and somewhat ironic, as so many of his other stories are. Had I never read the original story, I would'nt've hated the ending I suppose, but as someone who discovered Bradbury at age twelve (an appropriate age, yes?**) I just can't accept it. I suspect it was that very reason that Bradbury did not use his real name as screenwriter and instead uses the pseudonym of Douglas Spaulding.** If you have seen the movie I suggest you read the story and see how it's supposed to end.
** If you don't understand that point read Dandelion Wine
But before I tear into the wretched ending I'll talk about some other things first. Any filmmaker who tries to turn a Bradbury story into a film faces a doubly difficult task. It's never easy to turn (i.e. stretch) any short story into a feature length movie and it's even harder to put a Bradbury story on film, as anyone who has read him can easily attest.
The movie's story is based upon his short story "In a Season of Calm Weather", originally published in Playboy in 1957 and later anthologized in his book A Medicine For Melancholy. Several of his other works have been turned into movie projects with very uneven results: Fahrenheit 451 as done by François Truffaut (pretty good), The Illustrated Man (not bad), and last and certainly least, The Martian Chronicles (positively dreadful). This movie would have been much better if they hadn't ruined the ending.
In order to stretch the movie out the directors included several extended scenes of Picasso's paintings coming to life and an overly long bull fighting sequence. The animated sequences are quite good but I can't help but feel they last as long as they do to fill the empty space between the live action parts. Not only were they too long but the same sequences were used over and over again and seemed too repetitive. Ditto for the bull fighting part (included here to help explain Picasso's fascination with the subject). It may be a good idea to go make dinner during the bull fight, if only to miss its grisly conclusion when the poor bull dies in bloody agony after being gored by the bull fighter's sword.
The movie begins with the couple attending what would have been considered a hip (but ultimately vapid) San Francisco party, where George sees a woman with a tattoo of an eye on her neck (get it? Picasso?) and an artist is selling paintings of single alphabetical characters (I really liked his lower case "a"). The old band Sopwith Camel makes the briefest of appearances (if you blink you'll miss them), which is a shame, since they are one of the many bands from 60s that have been sadly forgotten. The party, along with his disillusionment with his pointless career, is what leads George and his wife to go on their extended journey to look for Picasso.
It should be remembered that this more of a 60s European film and less of a typical Hollywood flick. Movies like this move slowly and many Americans, particularly today's generation (who rate a movie by its explosions and body counts), will find it boooooring. This was one of the first big movies the great cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond worked on after he had escaped from behind the Iron Curtain. You really can't see much distinctive work here although he did his best work on big budget movies like Close Encounters. The film score by Michel Legrand is fine but it seemed at times a bit too much, especially during the extended animated sequences. Again, this kind of thing is not unexpected, given the time this movie was made.
Now about the ending. I would have normally given this movie a high mark, like a 7 out of 10, because I like movies of this type. However, the ending absolutely ruined this movie for me and I am at a loss to explain how it came it about. As far as the movie goes, the ending is not inconsistent with the progress of the story, but it is essentially a 180° reverse of how Bradbury ended his story. The story's ending was meant to be bittersweet and somewhat ironic, as so many of his other stories are. Had I never read the original story, I would'nt've hated the ending I suppose, but as someone who discovered Bradbury at age twelve (an appropriate age, yes?**) I just can't accept it. I suspect it was that very reason that Bradbury did not use his real name as screenwriter and instead uses the pseudonym of Douglas Spaulding.** If you have seen the movie I suggest you read the story and see how it's supposed to end.
** If you don't understand that point read Dandelion Wine