Review of Three Colors: Blue

This film is a critical darling - a favourite of many notable film critics, including perhaps most famously Roger Ebert. But after watching it, I can't quite see what all the fuss is about. Seems a bit like an "Emperor with no clothes" situation where one must praise the film lest they not be allowed in the esteemed halls of the famous critics. To me, "Bleu" is objectively not a very good film. The story is not that interesting, the characters are not that likable, the cinematography has its moments, but mostly the film has a dull look, and the music quite bad actually considering the importance of music to the plot. You look at your watch and keep going, thinking that it must get good at some point to justify all this lavish praise. But it never does.

I think what is appealing to the critics and people who love this flim is that it is rich in symbolism and metaphors. Everything means something else. From reading Roger Ebert's gushing review, apparently there is even some "meta" symbolism at play in the larger scheme of the three film "Three Colors" trilogy. As clever as all this is, it didn't actually help me enjoy watching it any more than I did. The color blue motif that runs through the film comes across more hammy than clever.

My partner remarked "well, that was a waste of time" after the film ended, and I can't help but feel the same way, even though I usually enjoy challenging films. C'est la vie, but consider yourself warned.