Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Lisa Muñoz As a huge fan of Van Gogh, this film really let me down. I wasn't betting on it being that good, since it had Robert Altman directing the film, a filmmaker known for making extremely boring films, and Tim Roth playing Vincent. My low expectations were not rewarded. No one has any real conversations in the movie. It's just a long line of taunting, hissy-fits and unspoken feelings running high. Theo's story has been virtually unheard of, due to his brother's overwhelming talent and popularity. But this version of his story doesn't do the art dealer any kind of justice. He is aggressive, whiny and seemingly just as mad as his brother. He is needlessly cruel to his wife and neglects his baby. Worst of all, there is no genuine portrayal of tenderness towards his brother Vincent. Their relationship, although tumultuous at times, was extremely loving, sweet and caring in real life, but I find none of it here. Tim Roth as Vincent simply just doesn't cut it for me. Just like his paintings, Vincent was variegated, passionate, intense and caring, as well as troubled, manic and deeply sad. Roth, who is known for playing gangsters or London thugs, is portrayed as nothing more than a bipolar painter who harms himself. The script also just made the film very boring indeed. There is no nuanced flexibility in the story arc of the Van Gogh brother's lives. I didn't really feel any artistic passion or benevolent feelings for the characters. If you want a good portrayal of Vincent Van Gogh, watch Benedict Cumberbatch in Van Gogh Painted With Words, or Tony Curran in the Doctor Who episode "Vincent and The Doctor". These two performances give out a much better understanding of the man behind all of the famously rich, vibrant paintings.

MartinHafer The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object."Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.

Cosmoeticadotcom Vincent & Theo, a 1990 film by director Robert Altman, may be the worst film ever made by a major director who has made a great film. Watching this two hour and twenty minute abomination left me, and my wife, stunned by its wretchedness. From the nonexistent narrative, to the indulgence of every artistic cliché imaginable by screenwriter Julian Mitchell, to possibly the worst soundtrack, by Gabriel Yared, ever used in a film (even worse than the estimably bad Robot Monster!), it's a wonder Altman ever crawled his way out from under the odium of this horrorshow, the nadir of his career- even more so than Popeye a decade before. Yet, his very next film, The Player, somehow relaunched his career. If I can indulge a cliché, maybe it really can be darkest before the dawn! I have still yet to see a successful film made on the life of a real artist, where all the clichés were not utilized. Perhaps the closest to that ideal was Amadeus, save for the fact that its protagonist was not Mozart, but Salieri, and the story was the latter's envy of the former's talent, and the truth was that that whole film was an almost total fiction.This film, however, does not even address the artistic impulse, and the paintings, which is the ONLY reason anyone gives a damn about Vincent Van Gogh, his suffering, or even his brother. Altman states, in the featurette, that what interested him were Vincent's letters to Theo, yet we NEVER get a hint of what they say, only one ridiculously melodramatic scene where a raving Theo bitches at his wife's opening up of the letters.Altman's always been at his best in ensemble pieces, like Nashville, M*A*S*H, The Player, and Gosford Park. He seems utterly adrift in this intense de facto two person stage play where both actors wildly overact, as if they were in a Roger Corman 1960s comic-horror version of Lust For Life, save with British accents, not Dutch.Vincent & Theo is a horrible film, in its own stolid way as bad as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, but it seems even worse because Spielberg's never come within a light year of a film as complex as Nashville. There is no progression nor insight into Vincent Van Gogh in this film, nor even his brother. When the brothers die we do not care, nor do we have an iota of insight into Altman's ideas on life and art. Vincent's graffiti that 'I AM THE HOLY SPIRIT. I AM WHOLE IN SPIRIT.' are not only dull and trite, but not given a shred of evidence one way nor the other by Altman. I could go on and on, and list a few dozen other reasons why this is easily Altman's worst film, and a terrible film, period, but hopefully I've earned enough trust with my readership that I can tell them to simply skip this one and watch Lust For Life instead. It's a better film, and more intellectually honest, to boot. OK, exhale!

George Parker "Vincent & Theo" tells of the later years of the too short lives of painter Vincent Van Gogh and his lesser known brother, Theo. I was surprised, after viewing a Tivo'd version of the film, at how little has been written about and made of this wonderfully crafted period film by Robert Altman. Roth (Vincent) and Ryhs (Theo) distinguish themselves with superb performances which make the spectacle of their work on screen as interesting, if not more so, than the lives of their humble characters. The entire cast turns in solid performances, something which must be attributed largely to Altman, and the film offers excellence in every aspect with the possible exception of sound. Running a tad long for a somewhat less than extraordinary biography, "Vincent & Theo" is recommended for more mature viewers into period films or those with a special interest in Van Gogh and/or classical painting.