Why so much hype?

That was an excellent one.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

How could Piccoli blow it so big-time after appearing in more than 200 pictures? Did no one tell him that he would appear with his back to the camera for about 15 minutes in the first reel, performing with very bored-looking actors, including a completely wasted Catherine Deneuve who does not even get a close-up? It seems almost unimaginable that the stars of Belle De Jour (1964) bomb together in this utter dud all these decades later. How does a movie director of 93 years old dare to demonstrate that during a long life in the industry he has learnt next to nothing about building character and plot? I'm Going Home makes The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (in which Piccoli also starred) seem like Gone With The Wind by comparison. For example, the joke about the Figaro=reader who fancies Piccoli's seat in the café is played, not once, not twice, but a third time. Did nobody in the production team have the heart to save the Great Man from his own feeble wit? For a few pretentious cinephiles this film might hold some archival interest, but the overwhelming majority of intelligent movie-buffs will be paralysed with boredom in the first two minutes. Low budget is no excuse: Sex, Lies & Videotape was made for far less than this picture cost. And as for age, all the director demonstrates is that he has learnt nothing about pleasing an audience.

Watching this film is like watching mud dry. Obviously I have a definite prejudice but its distinctly like "About Schmidt", another snorer in which absolutely nothing happens. I found it impossible to care about what happened with these characters other than to hope, as the film progressed, that they didn't linger in old age any longer than necessary. There were many extraneous scenes (the old actor walking, lingering on subsidiary characters in bars and coffee shops) as if these added in any way to advancing the plot or developing character. There appears to be an audience for films of this type but it is so far from important films about the challenges of advancing age like "Wild Strawberries", "Men With Guns" or "Ikiru", as to be a parody.

It´s amazing how Manoel de Oliveira, who's 93 years old, accomplishes so much in this film using so little. The story is quite simple and there´s nothing very unusual about the characters. But the film captures the audience´s attention in a remarkable way. We get to know so much about the characters that sometimes we feel that we´re reading a book, when the author has pages and pages to tell everything about them. Michel Picoli plays a successful stage actor who, after losing wife, daughter and son-in-law in a car accident, learns to overcome his grief bringing his young grandson to live with him. Manuel de Oliveira doesn't use exciting camera angles nor spectacular takes. Everything is quite simple in his film. It's the simplicity of a master, who knows perfectly well what's he's doing. Acting is superlative. Picoli's work is on the level of the best performances of Ingmar Bergman's actors. And, of course, there's John Malkovich, with very few lines but an enormous intensity, in the role of an American film director who's shooting a movie version of James Joyce's "Ulysses". This is one of the most intelligent, delicate and touching films I've seen in many years.

Touching is the first word that comes to mind. de Oliveira goes to Cannes every year and delivers the best movie and doesn't get any prize. He's 93 and he still puts out more than a movie a year and what movies I must say. Stunning beauty and poetry come out of this work. This movie sees an amazing performance by Michel Piccoli; he goes right in deep into his character. Merci Beaucoup Mr De Oliveira!