Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

richard-1787 If you're looking for a movie that faithfully reduces In Search of Lost Time to 2 hours or so, this isn't it. But then, that's impossible, so you will be frustrated in your search.What this is is a problematic movie.If you don't know Proust's 4000 page novel, In Search of Lost Time, I suspect a lot of this movie won't make sense to you. If you do know it, on the other hand, you might be upset that X does not look like Proust's character A, that Y scene was left out, etc.So, the best way to enjoy this movie - and there is a lot in it to enjoy - is to know Proust's novel well enough so that you can make sense of the movie, but then to forget about it and treat this as a movie that is not trying to film Proust's novel.I could go on about the way the film jumps from scene to scene based on recollections of the narrator. One might say that that's Proustian, but Proust does not in fact jump from one short scene to the next. So I'll leave that aside.What this is, for me - and I have seen the movie several times - is a remarkable collection of performances by some of France's greatest actors and actresses - and John Malkovich. The performances by Catherine Deneuve (as Odette; no, she does not look at all like I had imagined Odette from the novel, but she is radiant in this movie), Emmanuelle Béart (as Gilberte Swann; ditto), John Malkovich (Charlus; ditto in spades; he does not look at all like Proust describes Charlus, but he creates a remarkably moving and coherent character), Vincent Perez (Morel; he may look like Proust's Morel, but he gives him more depth), and Marie-France Pisier (Mme Verdurin) are all absolutely first rate, beautiful to watch. They make the film for me. Other characters important in Proust are either reduced to very small roles (the Duke and Duchess de Guermantes, the Prince and Princess de G) or vanish altogether (Swann, Marcel's father). But watching the above great actors and actresses give great performances is, for me, the great value of this movie.If you want Proust, you'll just have to read it.But if you want to see some of France's greatest actors and actresses at their best, you could do a lot worse than this movie.

stark-7 Well I, like many people, have not read Proust. That, however, did not stop me enjoying "Time". I found the film hard to understand, at points slow and bothersome, but when the film made it, it reached out and I was deeply impressed.At points the film stank. I remember two such point, but they only lasted 30 seconds or so each. For the rest of the time I was totally immersed in the film. It had a certain presence that meant even when my sister came instead of her usually silly comments about "silly foeign films" but sat down and watched.This is going nowhere, very much like the film. But ultimately this is going somewhere, like the film. From the beginning, to the end. Inbetween is just sweet ephemera.

virgilx nothing could take the place of proust's terrific words, but i felt exhilaration through the whole film. like the comedy in proust's voluminous in search of lost time (as in his writing is so good you have to be joyous), the surrealism, images, direction, and overall focus of the film are great fun - the scene in the brothel where marcel searches for a chair to stand on is precious, as is the slippery audience of the violin and piano recital scene.a couple of other comments without negating the masterpieceness of the film: acting wise, mazzarella looks like proust and doesn't say much, malkovich steals scenes, and deneuve, beart, perez, and the rest don't act as much as model seriously. except pascal's saint loup's discourse while devouring his dinner, another hoot.secondly, this is a hell of a challenging film (i'm not fronting like i read proust extensively, i'm only up to within a budding grove). i didn't know what was going on and who was who thanks to time jumps, surrealism, subtitles, and the slew of characters. i enjoyed the film as wonderful filmmaking and comedy. repeated viewings might make things a little clearer. regardless, it's difficult and memorable.one love to you all, thanks.

jwarthen-3 I got to see this film in London, and went not expecting much. Amazing, then-- this film could appear in a "Masterpiece Theater" format, afloat as it is in voluptuous costumes, spectacular food, beautiful interiors, gossiping grand dames-- the stuff that makes one keep going back to period costume dramas, hoping to find one this complex and piquant. Its swarming cast of characters have an almost symphonic density, and in the final soiree, in which the violin sonata that defines "Swann's Way", a viewer welcomes each face as it approaches the narrator/camera. A beautiful earlier scene, in which the Proust-character encounters a deranged Baron Charlus (John Malkovich) in the driveway of a spa moves its extended tracking shot in and out of shadows and real-light, and as Ruiz goes on risking lighting-difficulties and getting away with it, you realize this is one lucky movie.