Nick Hart (Keith Carradine) is an ex-patriot American painter who lives in Paris in the 1920's. He picks up some money selling caricatures but is very poor. An art gallery owner, Libby (Genevieve Bujold) is sympathetic but can't muster up many sales for Nick's work. Now, a wealthy divorcée. Nathalie (Geraldine Chapman) commissions Nick to make copies of some expensive paintings, as a sort of plot against her ex-husband. Reluctantly, Nick agrees. Complicating matters further is the fact that when Nick frequents his favorite bar, which is quite often, he runs into a beautiful, beautiful woman named Rachel (Linda Fiorentino) who happens to be married to a rich American businessman, Bertram (John Lone). Wouldn't you know, Bertie is a sadist and controls Rachel with an iron fist. He loves to do things like shave under Rachel's arms with a straight razer! So, two things are paramount to Nick. Will he begin to sell his art and will he be able to win Rachel away from her husband? This is quite a lovely film with a very great cast. Carradine does a fine job as the main character while Fiorentino is extremely lovely and touching. But, its Lone who practically steals the show, with his terrifying turn as the bad, bad guy. Most everyone will appreciate the gorgeous sets, costumes, art direction and photography. Then, too, the script is first rate while the direction is most competent. Look for the Moderns on your next video run.
25 Reviews
Quirky, Fun, Interesting
dane1121 January 2004
Alan Rudolph does not make movies for everyone to see. His movies seem like personal projects that interest him at the time. Some of his movies I haven't been able to get involved in (Trixie, Mortal Thoughts, Afterglow) but with The Moderns, I was pulled in quickly. The story focuses on Keith Carradine's ex-patriot Nick Hart, a painter who has the ability to duplicate famous works of art with his brush. He's hired to create forgeries by Mademoiselle de Ville (Geraldine Chaplin).
But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed
But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed
Quirky, Fun, Interesting
dane1121 January 2004
Alan Rudolph does not make movies for everyone to see. His movies seem like personal projects that interest him at the time. Some of his movies I haven't been able to get involved in (Trixie, Mortal Thoughts, Afterglow) but with The Moderns, I was pulled in quickly. The story focuses on Keith Carradine's ex-patriot Nick Hart, a painter who has the ability to duplicate famous works of art with his brush. He's hired to create forgeries by Mademoiselle de Ville (Geraldine Chaplin).
But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed on many levels, just like a work of art.
But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed on many levels, just like a work of art.
A fun romp through a Movable Feast
rpaulsondc19 July 2004
Rudolph sets an interesting atmosphere in this film about artists in Paris between the wars. Most of the scenes are borrowed from Hemingway's "A Movable Feast," and the dialog liberally pokes fun of the author. Some characters play better than others - Wallace Shawn's Oiseau is memorable, as is John Lone's Creepy, enigmatic part. I enjoy Carradine's artist character - though I understand that some people are rubbed the wrong way by his performance. Linda Fiorentino is somewhat annoying in her part, as is Genevieve Bujold. Still, as other comments note, the soundtrack is really quite impressive - and worth having on its own. Overall, if you like Rudolph's films, and you want to see an interesting take on some of Hemingway's autobiographical ramblings, this is a fun one to watch. This is a film that I first went to see by accident, but liked more an more as time went on - personally I put it in a class with "Diva" for atmosphere - some characters work, and others don't, and you either like the movie or you hate it. I, for one, like it.
Very stylish interpretation of 1920s Paris
Loulou-817 August 1999
This is a fairly enjoyable tale set in the art world of 1920s Paris. The look of the film and the mood it creates are the most important things; far more important than the enjoyable, yet slow-moving plotline.
It is highly imaginative and its representation of icons such as Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein add an extra dimension to the film.
The only true weak points are some of the dialogues between the two leads; it is sometimes out of place and almost too 'modern'!
All the performances are good but John Lone and Keith Carradine are especially suited to their parts.
It is highly imaginative and its representation of icons such as Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein add an extra dimension to the film.
The only true weak points are some of the dialogues between the two leads; it is sometimes out of place and almost too 'modern'!
All the performances are good but John Lone and Keith Carradine are especially suited to their parts.
Empty Under Water
caspian197828 July 2022
A fan of the time period and its characters will be disappointed in this story. At moments, the movie trues to capture Paris in 1926 but falls shorts with endless empty performances, motivations, acting, narrative and background. Carradine is flat beyond measure as he portrays an unlikeable, dull, dead on arrival character. Yes, this is the lost generation, but the protagonist is neither here or there. Wallace Shawn and Kevin O'Connor bring a much needed departure from this failure of a story but it is still not enough to make sense of this movie. Linda Fiorentino's rawness is breathtaking and worth sitting through2 hours of emptiness. A great potential of a film, that falls short to being above water as the movie continues to sink as you watch.
A quirky little movie about fakery
André-79 August 2002
This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has a genuine, unpretentious charm to it that I found appealing.
Alan Rudolph made this delightful little ode to lies, trickery and delusion on a shoestring budget. The story of a failed painter down on his luck in Paris in the 1920's who accepts a comission to forge a famous impressionist painting. The film questions what is real versus what is perceived or subjective. In a series of criss-crossing subplots and seemingly random encounters Rudolph has fun playing with the trickery of film to made some sly points about the art forms we hold dear.
The film was shot in Montreal, Canada, standing in for Paris and New York in the 1920's, with French-Canadian actors playing Parisians... The plot twists include a millionaire art collector publicly slashing a priceless painting, thinking it a forgery, while the fake painting is sent to hang in a New York museum. A Dadaist poet fakes his own death in order to attend his funeral to hear the things people will say about him. Same character, named L'Oiseau is actually an American ex-patriate named Fagelman! In a toungue-in-cheek hommage to people's perception of the period, Rudolph has Papa Hemmingway hanging-out in all the cafe's and at all the parties... He is seemingly everywhere, sipping scotch and mouthing tough-guy cliches...
But the viewer must beware of what he is watching. In a scene where Bujold's character rides in a taxi with Carradine's we are treated to lovely rear projection shots through the cab's back window of impressionist paintings of Paris at night! In another dimly lit cafe scene Rudolph chose to end the scene by panning away from the action to the bar where among the extras in period costume, two punk rockers are watching a hockey game on t.v.
Alan Rudolph made this delightful little ode to lies, trickery and delusion on a shoestring budget. The story of a failed painter down on his luck in Paris in the 1920's who accepts a comission to forge a famous impressionist painting. The film questions what is real versus what is perceived or subjective. In a series of criss-crossing subplots and seemingly random encounters Rudolph has fun playing with the trickery of film to made some sly points about the art forms we hold dear.
The film was shot in Montreal, Canada, standing in for Paris and New York in the 1920's, with French-Canadian actors playing Parisians... The plot twists include a millionaire art collector publicly slashing a priceless painting, thinking it a forgery, while the fake painting is sent to hang in a New York museum. A Dadaist poet fakes his own death in order to attend his funeral to hear the things people will say about him. Same character, named L'Oiseau is actually an American ex-patriate named Fagelman! In a toungue-in-cheek hommage to people's perception of the period, Rudolph has Papa Hemmingway hanging-out in all the cafe's and at all the parties... He is seemingly everywhere, sipping scotch and mouthing tough-guy cliches...
But the viewer must beware of what he is watching. In a scene where Bujold's character rides in a taxi with Carradine's we are treated to lovely rear projection shots through the cab's back window of impressionist paintings of Paris at night! In another dimly lit cafe scene Rudolph chose to end the scene by panning away from the action to the bar where among the extras in period costume, two punk rockers are watching a hockey game on t.v.
Beautiful Work Of Art
domino10037 March 2004
*****SPOILER ALERT!!!*****
Alan Rudolph's "The Moderns" is a wonderful, funny and twisted film set in 1920's Paris, France. The front burner story is a triangle between Nick, his runaway wife and a cold as ice businessman that wants to obtain a higher social status. Nick(Keith Carradine)and Rachel(Linda Fiorentino)were married years ago and she bails out of the marriage. Years later, she shows up on the arms of Bertram Stone (John Lone). While he deals with her reappearance, he is also talked into making art forgeries by a rather shady behaving gallery owner, Valentin(Genevieve Bujold), as a favor for the wealthy Nathalie De Ville(Geraldine Chaplin). His friend, Oiseau (Wallace Shawn)constantly tells Nick that they should head to a new town called Hollywood to seek their fortune and Ernest Hemingway (Kevin J. O'Connor)wanders around in a state of alcoholic cynicism and making quirky observations.
The story, like the period in which the action takes place, is surreal. One scene has one of the dead characters rise from the grave like Houdini, strait-jack, chains and all. The relationship between Nick and Rachel is the heart of the story: Nick doesn't want to trust Rachel because of what she did, but all of his actions throughout the film are a result of Rachel. When he paints the forgeries, he thinks of Rachel's beauty and puts his feelings on canvas. He loves her, but is fighting with the possibility that if he opens his heart to her again, she will break it again. You can see this conflict when he slaps her in front of Stone, yet immediately becomes apologetic. Should he love her, or should he just back off? He clearly does when they share a sexual romp on the bathroom floor while her husband is downstairs.
The entire cast is great, but the best performance comes from O'Connor, who I think is one of the most underrated actors around.
This is a great movie to have if you feel like having a Paris night movie marathon, or just to have fun.
Alan Rudolph's "The Moderns" is a wonderful, funny and twisted film set in 1920's Paris, France. The front burner story is a triangle between Nick, his runaway wife and a cold as ice businessman that wants to obtain a higher social status. Nick(Keith Carradine)and Rachel(Linda Fiorentino)were married years ago and she bails out of the marriage. Years later, she shows up on the arms of Bertram Stone (John Lone). While he deals with her reappearance, he is also talked into making art forgeries by a rather shady behaving gallery owner, Valentin(Genevieve Bujold), as a favor for the wealthy Nathalie De Ville(Geraldine Chaplin). His friend, Oiseau (Wallace Shawn)constantly tells Nick that they should head to a new town called Hollywood to seek their fortune and Ernest Hemingway (Kevin J. O'Connor)wanders around in a state of alcoholic cynicism and making quirky observations.
The story, like the period in which the action takes place, is surreal. One scene has one of the dead characters rise from the grave like Houdini, strait-jack, chains and all. The relationship between Nick and Rachel is the heart of the story: Nick doesn't want to trust Rachel because of what she did, but all of his actions throughout the film are a result of Rachel. When he paints the forgeries, he thinks of Rachel's beauty and puts his feelings on canvas. He loves her, but is fighting with the possibility that if he opens his heart to her again, she will break it again. You can see this conflict when he slaps her in front of Stone, yet immediately becomes apologetic. Should he love her, or should he just back off? He clearly does when they share a sexual romp on the bathroom floor while her husband is downstairs.
The entire cast is great, but the best performance comes from O'Connor, who I think is one of the most underrated actors around.
This is a great movie to have if you feel like having a Paris night movie marathon, or just to have fun.
What is the point of this film?
z-8876619 February 2017
A pointless film. I have no problem with the film being shot in Montreal or the obvious Quebec accents. I'm not nitpicking here. The story is pointless, the movie is so unentertaining that I needed to check the time several times and I still can't believe it's "just" 2 hours long.
The film is not sure what it wants to be. A criticism of the art world while glamorizing the 20's and the artists of the era? A criticism of the rich who fund the art world while the film idolizes the artist? A story about a divorcing couple? Forgery? What is it exactly?
The 20's thing is just a backdrop. This story could've taken place at any time in any place, but we are given the roaring 20's to make this story more palatable. Most of the good reviews would not even consider watching the film if it were set in modern day New York.
I love the 20's and Europe at the time, but that's not enough for me to watch a bad movie with a poor script.
That's just my opinion. You don't have to believe me, see it for yourself, but then come back and leave a review because if you just quietly walk away from this mess, then it'll only be the 10 star reviews that will stay.
The film is not sure what it wants to be. A criticism of the art world while glamorizing the 20's and the artists of the era? A criticism of the rich who fund the art world while the film idolizes the artist? A story about a divorcing couple? Forgery? What is it exactly?
The 20's thing is just a backdrop. This story could've taken place at any time in any place, but we are given the roaring 20's to make this story more palatable. Most of the good reviews would not even consider watching the film if it were set in modern day New York.
I love the 20's and Europe at the time, but that's not enough for me to watch a bad movie with a poor script.
That's just my opinion. You don't have to believe me, see it for yourself, but then come back and leave a review because if you just quietly walk away from this mess, then it'll only be the 10 star reviews that will stay.
Rudolph's best! (Along with perhaps Choose Me).
turkam26 January 2005
I must admit Alan Rudolph's work is hard to either greatly admire or sternly criticize. He has become one of these directors, like David Cronenberg or Paul Verhooven, that some love and some despise. But, the reality is it is hard to know where such directors stand. I must say that my feeling that Rudolph's films were too much like his mentor Robert Altman's has been changed upon seeing "The Moderns." While I am a huge fan of Altman, it has been hard for me too admire directors that seem too merely imitate him. But, this film is much more surreal than anything that Altman has done, especially in recent years. The film also establishes a clear mood and setting. Rudolph also selects very solid shots throughout the film. If there has been one disadvantage of the cinema medium over stage, it is that the audience can not see an actor's immediate response to a given situation because the focus is on another character. But, here Rudolph lets you inside virtually each of the characters. The cast is also solid. Keith Carradine is at his best. It is a shame that he now apparently has to go to Iceland to find cinematic roles, but if one thinks Jeff Bridges is an underrated actor there is proof- at least in this film--- that Carradine has been overlooked even more. I also think Wallace Shawn is great here, which is amazing considering that I am NOT a fan of the film "My Dinner with Andre." And, lastly Mark Isham's score is brilliant in this film. It may not be a film for all tastes, and because of its simplistic nature it is understandable why this film gets lost in the shuffle when it comes to discussions about great films from the 80s. Nevertheless, I think it is a remarkable film if not for anything else it does prove that an American can make a great movie set in Paris, which is not a musical, even if it was (as this film was) shot in Montreal!
Comatose witless bore
ferdinand19324 August 2013
If Paris was this dull no one would have remembered it. This is a long sophomore love letter to a time when 'artists' (it's important to use inverted commas to show that artists are not real people but vaunted beings) were friends and foes and life was full of artistic dilemmas.
What do they say to each other? They talk in idiotic paradoxes because a paradox is a great way to reveal a truth in the opposite of what it states; they compose pretentious aphorisms on everything: don't confuse love and lust as the one is...it's meant to be the way artists talk - ever so profound and not mundane despite being short of money but sure of their future posterity.
It's rubbish writing dressed up in an introductory college course on modernism in the 1920s.
Americans went to Paris after world war one because the franc crashed and their dollars were worth a lot more; secondly, they liked the libertarian life of Paris compared to tight-lipped USA. Hemingway and Stein never learned French - they lived in a colony of expatriates, they never assimilated.
As to the story of this movie the less said so much the better. The actors are flat, and no wonder with the abysmal lines they are given, but he story is pure hokum too.
Avoid.
What do they say to each other? They talk in idiotic paradoxes because a paradox is a great way to reveal a truth in the opposite of what it states; they compose pretentious aphorisms on everything: don't confuse love and lust as the one is...it's meant to be the way artists talk - ever so profound and not mundane despite being short of money but sure of their future posterity.
It's rubbish writing dressed up in an introductory college course on modernism in the 1920s.
Americans went to Paris after world war one because the franc crashed and their dollars were worth a lot more; secondly, they liked the libertarian life of Paris compared to tight-lipped USA. Hemingway and Stein never learned French - they lived in a colony of expatriates, they never assimilated.
As to the story of this movie the less said so much the better. The actors are flat, and no wonder with the abysmal lines they are given, but he story is pure hokum too.
Avoid.
Delicious Immersion In An Artist's Parisian Life and Illusions
museumofdave7 April 2013
This film is, first of all, a love story--but a remarkably surprising one, and by no means ordinary. It starts with the usual expectations most of us have about Paris that Woody Allen recently utilized so effectively in Midnight In Paris, but instead of broad comedy, Director Alan Rudolph weaves a fascinating tale of intrigue in the art world, and peppers it with wit and ambiguity.
The smoky Parisian ambiance of Bohemian Cafes (mostly created in Canada) introduce the viewer to Keith Carradine's stereotypical starving artist--except that Carradine's role is written to surprise, and one is drawn into a labyrinth of conflicting emotions very quickly indeed. This film, like Thieves Like Us, demonstrates what a fine under-utilized actor Carradine continues to be.
The feeling of elation that comes from escaping from one's cares in another place washes through every bar and café and art opening, and the performances from such vibrant actors as kinky Geraldine Chaplin and quirky Wallace Shawn--and especially the intensely cold and controlled and fascinating John Lone enliven the two hours that linger long after the film is finished.
The smoky Parisian ambiance of Bohemian Cafes (mostly created in Canada) introduce the viewer to Keith Carradine's stereotypical starving artist--except that Carradine's role is written to surprise, and one is drawn into a labyrinth of conflicting emotions very quickly indeed. This film, like Thieves Like Us, demonstrates what a fine under-utilized actor Carradine continues to be.
The feeling of elation that comes from escaping from one's cares in another place washes through every bar and café and art opening, and the performances from such vibrant actors as kinky Geraldine Chaplin and quirky Wallace Shawn--and especially the intensely cold and controlled and fascinating John Lone enliven the two hours that linger long after the film is finished.
the art of artifice
mjneu598 December 2010
Alan Rudolph subscribes to the idea of Art for Art's sake, and as such is a kindred spirit to all the expatriate painters, poets, writers, and failures who flocked to the cultural Mecca of Paris in the naughty 1920s. The Jazz Age setting is tailor made for the director's latest romantic daydream, crafted here into a tongue-in-cheek satire of passion and creativity. The cast features his usual assembly of lonely eccentrics, cynical anti-heroes, and world-weary women, rubbing shoulders with historical figures like Gertrude Stein and Ernest Hemingway, who at one point compares life in bohemian Paris to a "portable banquet". As always with Alan Rudolph the film is a grab bag of visual wit and verbal invention (coming, at times, dangerously close to self-parody), with the added virtues of sensuous camera-work and a moody music score by Mark Isham. This is one filmmaker with the rare ability to mock his own pretensions (as Wallace Shawn says in the film, "we're artists: temperamental people!"), and his preoccupation with the art of artifice has never been better presented. Too bad the conclusion is spoiled by a false happy ending, which wraps up too many loose ends too neatly.
Wooden
Nullness27 July 2006
A couple years ago I saw Trouble in Mind, and was immediately absorbed in the atmospheric world the film portrayed. I have since been dying to see another movie by the same director. Well, I've just seen the Moderns, and was immediately disappointed. While the film shares the same claustrophobic tendencies of the previous work, in this one it doesn't seem as deliberate, but more a matter of budgetary restraints. I never got the feeling that I was watching Paris, or 1920's Paris, for that matter. All I got was the sensation of watching stilted actors playing dress-up. The dialogue and plot for this movie is b-movie crust, which can be good, but the dreariness of the action and the way in which the film was filmed left it almost completely vacant of any charm. Cute references to pop culture from the 20's only sounds contrived and makes the film more apparent of what it isn't. One should get the feeling one is watching the 20's unfold without the crutch of references. We are never given any reason to care for any of the actors. They are cartoonish, but not cartoonish enough for them to be relieving and enjoyable. This movie takes itself far too seriously to be enjoyed as camp, which makes scenes involving fake suicide and real suicide all the more dour. The sets are perhaps more wooden than the characters, Hart's art atrocious. Hemmingway appears as a jocular Ethan Hawke ruffian, a pale shadow compared to Hart's masculinity. Lampooning famous people can be fine, but not when the only purpose of it is to rip them off and make them a clown with no real relevance to the story. I did, however, like the portrayal of Gertude Stein as a cliquish art snob. That's a more fair assessment. To be missed or slept through.
A really bad movie
richard-17873 July 2012
The sets and costumes for this movie are often very impressive. Some of the photography is very good. There are some fine actors here. Yet this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! Why? It's the script and, to the extent one can tell, the director, who didn't know what to do with this awful script.
But mostly it's the script. It is stilted beyond belief. Characters do things with no apparent motivation. The character of Hemingway keeps spouting lines that have no connection to anything else, and that often don't mean anything. (If you've seen Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, that only makes some of the similar scenes here look that much worse.) How, I kept wondering, did this script get approved? And why did MGM release this? Take my word for it, it's one truly awful movie.
But mostly it's the script. It is stilted beyond belief. Characters do things with no apparent motivation. The character of Hemingway keeps spouting lines that have no connection to anything else, and that often don't mean anything. (If you've seen Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, that only makes some of the similar scenes here look that much worse.) How, I kept wondering, did this script get approved? And why did MGM release this? Take my word for it, it's one truly awful movie.
An absolutely beautiful film
nicko25200822 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Set in the 20s Keith Carridine plays a poor American painter trying to re kindle the relationship with his ex wife who also happens to be married to a business man, who (get this) had been rumored to have killed a man... Interesting. Keith Carridine and Linda Fiorentino are wonderful, but the true star of this film is John Lone. His demener in this film as a villian is unrivaled. I watched this film 3 times in a week. The ambiance of Paris portrayed here along with the score by Mark Isham will leave a lasting impression on anybody. This movie in itself is a piece of art filled with colorful images, wonderful dialogue and great acting, I highly recommend checking this one out.
Sheer Pretentiousness
supergenome28 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is sheer torture. Pure trash. Genuine idiocy. Absolute pretentiousness.
I cringe every time the characters lapse into theatrical dialog in French. I seethe with unbridled rage every time the characters deliver philosophical pieces of crap. I switched off the player after 15 minutes of uncontained stupidity of characterization, plot, and amateurish film-making.
You have no budget for authentic 1920's French backgrounds? Throw in the smoke machine. Ninety percent of the film is drenched in smoke to hide the fake settings.
I can go on and on explaining what is wrong with this movie but my patience has run out.
Gpo see your nearest lobotomist.
I cringe every time the characters lapse into theatrical dialog in French. I seethe with unbridled rage every time the characters deliver philosophical pieces of crap. I switched off the player after 15 minutes of uncontained stupidity of characterization, plot, and amateurish film-making.
You have no budget for authentic 1920's French backgrounds? Throw in the smoke machine. Ninety percent of the film is drenched in smoke to hide the fake settings.
I can go on and on explaining what is wrong with this movie but my patience has run out.
Gpo see your nearest lobotomist.
A screwball comedy classic, destroyed by poor direction
erikpsmith18 July 2004
If ever there was a movie that demanded to be remade, this is the one. The script is a comedy classic, but the direction made it look more like an episode of Twin Peaks or the X-Files. The pacing is sluggish; the actors are dour. What was Alan Rudolph thinking, anyway?
The script, taken by itself, is hilarious, a meditation on art and the pretensions of the "lost generation" of Americans in Paris during the 1920s. It might have been the best American screwball comedy of the eighties -- at least in script form. Most of the time, when a movie goes as far awry as this one does, you think the studio simply assigned the wrong director. But since this was a personal project for Alan Rudolph, and he presumably shaped the script every step of the way, I'm at a loss to understand what went wrong.
I just imagine what this movie might have been, in the hands of, say, Woody Allen, as long as he wasn't doing his Ingmar Bergman thing. Had the characters delivered their lines at a snappy pace; had they kept their tongues in cheek and played their characters as the sly weasels they were supposed to be, well, then, what a romp it might have been. With a jaunty 20s-jazz score, this movie might have been a classic.
As it stands, it's a failure, and I can only hope that someday someone will resurrect the property and give it the production it deserves. But you know, that script is so good -- I still say the movie is worth watching.
The script, taken by itself, is hilarious, a meditation on art and the pretensions of the "lost generation" of Americans in Paris during the 1920s. It might have been the best American screwball comedy of the eighties -- at least in script form. Most of the time, when a movie goes as far awry as this one does, you think the studio simply assigned the wrong director. But since this was a personal project for Alan Rudolph, and he presumably shaped the script every step of the way, I'm at a loss to understand what went wrong.
I just imagine what this movie might have been, in the hands of, say, Woody Allen, as long as he wasn't doing his Ingmar Bergman thing. Had the characters delivered their lines at a snappy pace; had they kept their tongues in cheek and played their characters as the sly weasels they were supposed to be, well, then, what a romp it might have been. With a jaunty 20s-jazz score, this movie might have been a classic.
As it stands, it's a failure, and I can only hope that someday someone will resurrect the property and give it the production it deserves. But you know, that script is so good -- I still say the movie is worth watching.
Hey did anyone involved here ever read any Stein or Hemingway?
inframan15 November 2000
A nice film to look at but otherwise a real piece of trash which I avoided up till now. The characters all seem to be from different cultures & from different eras which really is jarring, particularly in the 1960s - 1970s laid-back style of Carradine. The Stein/Toklas salon is a one-dimensional embarrassment. The Hemingway portrayal is a disaster on every level. The principals on this film must have really hated him. Only John Lone & Linda Fiorentino give the film any tension or dimension. Even Genevieve Bujold, an otherwise fascinating actress, is totally wasted in this pathetically boorish Rudolph effort.
An ultimately unsuccessful attempt to film a famous period.
dave13-113 April 2012
Paris in the early 1920s was one of the 20th century's most famous 'scenes', attracting many famous writers and artists to its cafés and galleries, especially expatriate Americans such as Hemingway and Henry Miller. Circulating amongst the luminaries, wannabes and hangers-on is an unsuccessful artist (Keith Carradine), struggling to keep afloat his marginal career, who encounters a former flame (Linda Fiorentino), now married to a thuggish social-climber (John Lone). The potential for story, period and character interest is there as conflict and an intrigue involving forged paintings soon follow and lead ultimately to tragedy, but little such interest is actually evoked. Paris itself looks dusty and old and a little run down, and little effort is made to make the viewer aware just WHY the city at this time was such a magnet. Indeed, thanks to some amber tinting in the cinematography that gives everything a harsh sun-washed look, Paris is deliberately portrayed like the urban equivalent of an ageing courtesan under unflattering lighting. The story that plays out comes off more tawdry than tragic and the characters are so selfish and bland as to evoke little sympathy or interest with the audience. I was hoping to get a better sense from the film as to why Paris had such a special attraction at this time, especially since, sadly, this world is no more, as much of the Montmartre has been razed and replaced by office towers.
Tongue-in-Cheek Send-off of Hemingway's Paris
nixxnutz15 November 2000
Sometimes the romantic subplot gets in the way of the satire, but when you see Hemingway drooling and mumbling into his scotch and hear Gertrude Stein recite one of her interminable doggerels masquerading as an unassuming philosophical gem, you know they can't be too serious. One of the greatest lines in any movie comes near the end, when Wallace Shawn says to Keith Carradine: "I ran into Maurice Ravel in the men's room. He didn't recognize me."
I love these early 20th century "period" films, and The Moderns is double the fun-no real suicides, and a hopeful, happy ending.
I love these early 20th century "period" films, and The Moderns is double the fun-no real suicides, and a hopeful, happy ending.
DVD from the library, moderately interesting period piece.
TxMike24 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie came to my public library on DVD. It seemed interesting, I watched it.
Keith Carradine is Nick Hart, expatriate painter in Paris. He finds it hard making a living as a legitimate painter, and hires himself out to duplicate two Cezane paintings. Does the customer eventually get the originals, or the duplicates?
Linda Fiorentino was only in her late 20s and cute as Rachel Stone. We see all of her in some racy scenes in the bathtub with her possessive lover.
In this period piece we see a number of characters famous for the period. I suppose they were living a very "Modern" lifestyle, thus the name of the movie. While mostly enjoyable, with multiple story lines, I do not give it a very high recommendation.
Keith Carradine is Nick Hart, expatriate painter in Paris. He finds it hard making a living as a legitimate painter, and hires himself out to duplicate two Cezane paintings. Does the customer eventually get the originals, or the duplicates?
Linda Fiorentino was only in her late 20s and cute as Rachel Stone. We see all of her in some racy scenes in the bathtub with her possessive lover.
In this period piece we see a number of characters famous for the period. I suppose they were living a very "Modern" lifestyle, thus the name of the movie. While mostly enjoyable, with multiple story lines, I do not give it a very high recommendation.
Great soundtrack, no noticeable script
Lanwench2 August 2001
Pretentious fluff with great music (some contemporary to the plot and some nice incidental stuff from Mark Isham). Contains a lot of posing from the stars, who do their best to enliven stiff dialogue (come on, do we REALLY think Hemingway walked around talking in spare and taciturn sentences such as he wrote?).
Did I mention the soundtrack is great? Oh, yeah. Sorry; it just really stands out in this mess.
Did I mention the soundtrack is great? Oh, yeah. Sorry; it just really stands out in this mess.
Disappointing and inauthentic
Paritai16 February 2003
The only excuse for such a movie is that it gives an authentic image of Paris 1926. But it doesn't. For one glaring example, one scene has Edith Piaf in the background singing Parlez moi d'amour. The only trouble is, in 1926, Piaf was 10 years old. Quelle domage.
Tongue-in-Cheek Send-off of Hemingway's Paris
nixxnutz15 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes the romantic subplot gets in the way of the satire, but when you see Hemingway drooling and mumbling into his scotch and hear Gertrude Stein recite one of her interminable doggerels masquerading as an unassuming philosophical gem, you know they can't be too serious. One of the greatest lines in any movie comes near the end, when Wallace Shawn says to Keith Carradine: "I ran into Maurice Ravel in the men's room. He didn't recognize me."
I love these early 20th century "period" films, and The Moderns is double the fun-no real suicides, and a hopeful, happy ending.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
