Jay Harris Manolo de Olveira who is 92 years young & still active in film,is to be commended for making this movie.This is really an art house film for those who know all about a film before they see it. The movie is 86 minutes long,It would have been a much clearer, more concise 60 minute Television exercise.The camera stands still with nothing happening for about a minute in many scenes.The last scenes with John Malkovich are in English, with no captioning, he speaks so low you cannot understand one word that he says.The audience is supposed to know before hand that the opening scenes are from an Obscure play by Ionesco & the scenes with Malkovich, the film being made is Ulysses. If you do not know from Ionesco you will not appreciate the beginning at all. I never understood Ulysses period. This is James Joyce's not Homer's.Michel Picoli a noted actor does a good job as the lead.Catherine Deneuve has a small role, since there were hardly any close ups I did not recognize who she was.I do like art-house type film but want to be able to understand them.I think I have more than 10 lines,Ratings: ** )out of 4) 52 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10)

MartinHafer While parts of the film are quite interesting, there are so many problems with it that I would hesitate to recommend it to anyone. First, there are many prolonged scenes from plays in the beginning of the film that don't seem to help the picture along. It was as if they had the footage and used it as padding. A few shorter shots would have clearly sufficed to explain to the audience that the leading man was a respected leading man on the French stage. Second, the camera work was awfully strange. Some might find it artsy, while others might be annoyed by the seemingly amateurish style. For example, many times the camera was static and the characters walked in and out of the shot. I assume it was to give the movie the style of a play, but to me it just looked like they left the camera on and left it. Third, the movie did not appear to have an ending or much of a buildup to it. It just ended very abruptly. Fourth, and finally, the relationship with the man and his grandson seemed poorly developed and could have used more screen time.Overall, the film needed to be hashed out more and seemed greatly in need of editing and revisions.

rowmorg 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.

danka it might be a spoiler I walked out of the cinema and I felt joy, overwhelming feeling of happiness. The movie has (had on me) such a positive impact. So I'm walking completely bemused rewinding the movie in my head. And I realize it is a sad, sad story. So sad.But I don't feel sad, I still feel peacefully calm. And I wonder: how does one make such a sad story, not getting remotely near pathetic and by far surpassing sad, making it.positive? I'm still rewinding the film trying my best to remember every scene, because each one is amazing, but I can feel my forgetfulness creeping up on me. I only had that one chance to see it, on this movie festival. I never got to cinemas, I wasn't expecting it to. Thus it will never get to video-clubs or video-stores (in my country, anyway).The movie is about life. As simple as that. All the little things we do, so trivial, yet so true. Like the habits we hold on to, or admiring the new shoes you just bought. That is the most beautiful scene for me. He meets his agent for a drink. They are sitting in a café, talking, chatting. But all throughout the conversation the camera is set a level lower. Not above the table, on their faces, but below the table, on their legs. Because he just bought a pair of new shoes. And his legs can't keep still. He is looking at them from this angle, admiring from that one. We all do that. For that brief period while something is new our eyes just keep glancing at it. We all do that, but we just don't pay attention. This is just a fragment of what you will find in this magnificent movie. It is a work of art. If you ever get a chance to see it, don't miss it.Unless, of course, you like all the same Hollywood movies that have a world saving plot, but are ever so completely empty, in which case this movie is far beyond your comprehension and you will find it meaningless, plotless, boring and painfully slow.