JoeKulik
Pawel Pawlikowski's Woman In The Fifth (2011) is just a VERY POOR film, in my opinion. The character of Tom Ricks is ill conceived and quite frankly pathetic. Tom, overall, is portrayed as just being a very STUPID man, a LOSER. He even acts STUPID most of the time, as when he tries to exit the attorney's office through the wrong door, and when he loses his luggage and money when he falls asleep on the bus, and he consistently wears a STUPID, LOSER expression on his face throughout the whole film. His expression reminds me of a deer caught in the headlights. There is nothing in Tom's character that would suggest that he was a college lecturer and a novelist, as he says he is in the film. There is a suggestion early in the film that Tom was previously in a hospital, presumably a mental hospital, and his "imaginary" lover Margrit, I suppose, is supposed to be a psychotic hallucination. But mentally ill people don't act the way Tom does. The screenwriter and the director failed to differentiate between mental illness and STUPIDITY.Although Tom's supposedly a former college lecturer and a novelist, he can't find a better job in Paris than working as a "guard" of some sort. Even without a work permit, someone with Tom's education would be able to find a better job "off the books" just by going around Paris and talking to people, by using the verbal skills that enabled him to write a novel. and to be a lecturer on literature. He even looks pathetic and incompetent in his first approach to Margrit at the literary party. His verbal skills in trying to "pick up" Margrit are pathetic.The whole premise that Tom came all the way to Paris just to be with his daughter is ill conceived. He seems to have moved to Paris without any preparation, with no place to stay, and no job prospects. Only a LOSER would move from the USA to Paris so unprepared. That he stumbles into a café after his money is stolen where the owner,Serez is willing to give him a room without any money up front is an unreal :coincidence". That the same Serez just happens to have an "off the books" job for Tom when he needs one is another unreal "coincidence". Such "unreal coincidences" in a screenplay indicate a weak substitution of a literary artifice for real creative thought.That Tom would become involved with the café waitress Annia without knowing that she is already Serez's girlfriend is just STUPID. Only a LOSER could spend as much time at the café as Tom did without picking up on the fact that Serez already had something going with Annia. That Annia would be so forward in her attempts to seduce Tom without at least advising him that she has some sort of romantic attachment to Serez, an obviously "bad dude", is even more STUPID.The whole nature of the "guard" job that Serez gives Tom is STUPID. Tom seems to understand that there is something shady going on behind the locked door that he monitors, but is seemingly not concerned that his "guard" job might be implicating him in criminal activity. That the viewer is never informed about what the nature of the "mysterious" business is behind the door that Tom is "guarding" is even more STUPID, and is merely indicative of a flaky screenplay.The whole business about Margrit is STUPID. The detective that was questioning Tom goes to Margrit's apartment only to return to tell Tom that Margrit committed suicide years before. So if Margrit is just some sort of psychotic hallucination by Tom, then how did Tom get the illusory woman's name correct, and even know her correct address? Psychotic hallucinations don't travel back in time and "attach" themselves to already dead people, and to their last known address when they were alive. What Tom was experiencing was more like a paranormal, or a voodoo experience, and nothing like mental illness at all. People who are mentally ill enough to hallucinate do not do so only part of the time. People mentally ill enough to hallucinate as vividly as Tom supposedly did about Margrit, are VERY mentally ill ALL of the time. The character Tom in this film is not convincingly portrayed as being mentally ill at all, but, rather, as a LOSER. And LOSERS do not have psychotic hallucinations but rather, are more likely to end up sitting on a street curb in skid row drinking out of a wine bottle.After the detective tells Tom that Margrit killed herself years ago, why didn't Tom produce the calling card Margrit gave him at the party, or advise the detective about the bookstore owner who invited Tom to that party? Tom isn't shown going back to the bookstore owner to try to confirm that a "real" Margrit even attended the party. There's a BIG "hole" in the storyline right here.Overall, there is no discernible "meaning" in this film for me. This film doesn't even "just spins a good yarn" because the film doesn't even give the viewer any kind of clear story. It's just about the aimless wanderings of an inadequate, incompetent man, a LOSER, with a consistently STUPID look on his face that has some kind of paranormal, or voodoo experience involving a woman who's been dead for many years.THIS FILM IS A LOSER. The money and time spent on making this film was just a WASTE.
ICanNeverThinkOfAGoodUsername
I thought the last 5 minutes would sum up everything I saw. I was wrong. The ending is... I wouldn't even call it an ending. You're left wondering what actually happened in the film and what the explanation is. Even if you like interpreting things yourself - this film is very vague. You could say there were a lot of random events that happened but nothing came of them.For example the main character had a dodgy job - that's it. That's all I can tell you about it. Nothing ever came of it. Then the storyline moved onto something else which was never explained.I've seen a lot of rubbish films with rubbish endings but this film is completely ridiculous. I genuinely mean that. The film doesn't explain anything at all. In other rubbish films I've seen you get some sort of rubbish explanation... In this film there is no explanation what so ever.I definitely would not recommend this film at all.SPOILERS AHEAD: 1. Was the guy mentally ill or not? 2. Was the woman dead or not? 3. Why would he tell the supposed dead woman that he slept with someone else when he was also sleeping with her? Surely she'd mind...4. Why would he accept a dodgy job? 5. Why did we always get scenes of him in the woods? It was something he dreamed of in his book, but why show it in the film? What is the significance?
LeonLouisRicci
A Haunting Enigma of a Film where there are no easy answers, but they are there if you look and listen closely, that is filled with Ugly and Beautiful images suggesting a Schizophrenic impression of Life. Illustrating that, in effect, perception and point of view is all in the Mind.This is Creepy and Complex and is not an easy decipher, like Psychoanalysis it may take some time to penetrate its Secrets and uncover the Pathology. It is intriguing, but not always Fun discovering the ambiguous layers in this Movie with its decidedly Euro feeling. Through the glasses darkly.It is Cerebral Cinema for those wanting that sort of thing. Upon reflection it is much more than the initial Viewing would suggest and would seem to invite a second look. Obviously not for everyone, but those willing to take chances and explore the wide range of Experiences that Movies have to offer, this is a good one. Ethan Hawke shows some disciplined range and the Foreign Director may pick up a few American admirers with this Artistic Vision.
Moviegoer19
While Ethan Hawke is not one of my favorite actors, Kirstin Scott-Thomas is. This is not to say I don't like Hawke, though if this were the only film of his I'd seen, I wouldn't want to see another. This film is the only one of Scott-Thomas that I haven't liked. So, how could these two actors be in such a flop? I actually turned it off about two thirds of the way through, too bored to continue. I found myself wondering how much time was taken up in loooong camera shots. As the character played by Ethan Hawke screws his way back and forth between two women, not too much else happens. The characters I found to be pretentious (especially K. Scott-Thomas's character) and predictable. If you're considering watching The Woman in the Fifth, don't waste your time.
