Le Week-End (2013) Poster

(2013)

User Reviews

Review this title
63 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Less magical than its marketing campaign would suggest: a mostly realistic, darkly touching look at a relationship that's close to breaking point.
shawneofthedead5 March 2014
To rekindle the spark in their marriage, an older man takes his wife to the most romantic city in the world for a whirlwind weekend of food and courtship. It seems the perfect premise for a charming if slightly quaint romantic comedy, focused on people who seldom get to take centre stage in Hollywood. Certainly, its marketing campaign has focused on the film's sharp, giddy bursts of joy and emotion, suggesting that love later in life is possible and even glorious. But, make no mistake about it, Le Week-End is far from a sweet and simple exercise in wish-fulfilment. In fact, this is a prickly, frequently painful look at a relationship that works as much as it doesn't: a bond forged through time, heartache and anger that could as easily be mistaken for love as for hate.

Nick (Jim Broadbent) and Meg (Lindsay Duncan) - a couple who have been married for decades - return to Paris, where they had their honeymoon. It soon becomes clear that Nick is desperately keen to make his marriage work again, even as his wife tries - sometimes with great determination, sometimes half-heartedly - to suggest that they go their separate ways. Their son is grown, you see, and there's nothing except years of knowing and being with each other to hold them together.

The film is at its finest when Nick and Meg walk the streets of Paris, their bickering and banter hinting at the rot that has set into their marriage. There is love between them, but not the kind that swells the heart with dreams of romance and magic. It's worn, and tattered, and quite possibly fading. They argue over their good-for-nothing son - Nick wants to take care of him, Meg thinks he should be independent - and Meg finds out that Nick is close to losing his job. They say hurtful things because, after long years of marriage, they know just what to say to really twist the knife. Le Week-End, at least in the beginning, is refreshingly free of sentiment, instead taking a long, hard look at the quiet, seemingly inconsequential tragedies that can eat away at a long relationship.

The character work is also quite wonderful. Neither Nick nor Meg is easily categorised or stuffed into a stereotype. When Nick meets his old college friend Morgan (Jeff Goldblum) in the streets, he's forced to confront the tiny disappointments that have made up his life. It adds depth to this portrait of a man whose eagerness to please is rooted in his abject terror of being alone. On her part, Meg can come across as almost brutally distant, someone who's withdrawn into herself to shake the feeling that something went quite badly wrong in the life she's leading.

Credit is due especially to Broadbent and Duncan, who fearlessly create characters and forge an intriguing chemistry that carry the film through its weaker moments. Broadbent is the tremulous heart of the film, and Duncan its gritty spirit. Together, they make the push and pull between Nick and Meg rich and sad at the same time: these are clearly people who could be better apart, but might not survive the separation.

Where Le Week-End falters is in its good but troubled script by Hanif Kureishi. His characters speak in dialogue that's razor-sharp, reeling off lines that are beautifully crafted but - because they occur with such regularity - can sometimes come off as fake or pretentious. It's jarring in a film that's otherwise so determined to be clear-eyed about romance and love in the real world. The film wraps up awkwardly as well, as if it's not quite sure where to leave this couple: to suggest a happy ending would be to undo its entire narrative trajectory, and yet there can be nothing simple about a pair of lives so tangled and complex.

Anyone hankering after a sweet, gentle romantic comedy set in the cobblestoned streets of Paris should look elsewhere - Le Week-End is dark and sometimes heartbreaking, suffused as it is with a love that's been broken down by loss, sacrifice and disappointment. It's funny, but often in a bittersweet way, and the relationship at its heart sometimes feels as if it might be beyond salvation. Perversely, that's what makes the film work - but it most certainly won't be to everyone's tastes.
59 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Genuinely absorbing
willsdomicile17 October 2013
The trailer hinted at a charming romp around Paris; reviews suggested something darker. In reality it proved to be a very honest, challenging film, which refused to pop love-in-marriage into a convenient genre-box.

I can understand completely that it wasn't many people's cup of tea. Certainly not a cosy feel-good movie for the growing sixtysomething demographic that presumably ensured finance for the movie to be made. But it your relationship is resilient – or you are single – there is pleasure to be had in this grown-up story.

Yes, it was painful to watch at times, but delightful at others – a bit like life. Yes you wanted to smack them both for being so... annoying. No, you probably wouldn't invite them round to dinner without a certain amount of sighing. But I defy you to work out, before the end, whether they themselves would work out before the end. And I trust it will make a star, at last, of the luminous Lindsey Duncan.
41 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a romantic Parisian comedy, but a sharp reflection on long lasting couple life
yris200222 June 2014
Don't expect a romantic comedy from this picture, it has traces of comedy, very short hints of romance, but it is more a sharp, although sometimes really funny, reflection on the difficulty of giving sparkle to a marriage, after 30 years of mutual endurance. There's still love between Meg and Nick, but with so many ups and downs, mainly from Meg's part, who once seems to want to leave her husband, and then is terrified when she does not see him in their bed. And then Nick, terrified of being deserted by her wife, and ready to enjoy every short minute she seems to be willing to love him. It is a movie about the difficulty of living together, mainly when we have to come to terms with the failures of our individual life, of the need to feel that we could individually start everything anew. So, the movie progresses or better drags itself along the cobbled streets of Paris, through the sharp, sometimes brutal bickering of this funny couple, which is not always easy for the viewer to endure, in particular when dialogues seem to be a little pretentious and to be proclaiming some universal truth about marriages and living together, thus sounding a little more didactic and philosophical than realistic. I think the last ten minutes of the movie give a final intense and authentic touch, which could have started or been emphasized earlier. However, I appreciated the effective chemistry of the two main actors, they are carefully devised as not to result stereotyped and their interpretations proved really deep and heartfelt.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A mature look at mature love
Buddy-5128 September 2014
Usually when movies use Paris as a romantic backdrop, it's a young couple who gets to occupy the foreground. Not so with "Le Week-End," a tale of two aging tourists - he a professor of philosophy, she a teacher - who've chosen to "celebrate" their 30th anniversary in (where else? ) the City of Lights.

Like many couples who have been together for a long time, Nick and Meg Burroughs often seem to have more things that are driving them apart than bringing them together. Not only have they grown tired of each other's all-too-predictable habits and quirks, but Meg, in particular, feels that now, with the kids grown and gone, it may be time for the two of them to move on and to spend what little time they have left getting to know themselves as individuals rather than as a couple.

Because the screenplay by Hanif Kureishi is clearly focused on an older couple, the film captures the paradox that exists at the core of lasting romantic love: that the very same predictable patterns and dull routines that, over time, work to deaden love are also what enhance intimacy and bind us inexorably to one another over the long haul.

Though Meg and Nick are still clearly sexual beings, even that fact has caused some tension and division between them, namely in an affair Nick had awhile back and for which he is perpetually atoning. Yet, the script is smart enough to know that what is said in the heat of the moment is not always indicative of what is in the heart.

Much of the second half of the film takes place at a posh and pretentious dinner party thrown by an old college buddy of Nick's, an American author and intellectual played by Jeff Goldblum.

Director Roger Michell keeps the tone serious and intimate without becoming heavy-handed or preachy. He allows the characters to reveal their depth through conversation and the way they interact with the world and each other. He is aided immeasurably by the skilled and incisive performances of Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan, who make us truly believe that they are a couple who have grown both comfortable and complacent with one another over time. Above all, "Le Week-End" acknowledges that relationships are tricky and complex things and come with no pat or easy instructions to make them easier to navigate our way through.

After "Le Week-End," it may not be necessary for Richard Linklater to make another "Before…" movie, after all. I think Kureishi and Michell might have done it already.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good idea but...
anthony_imdb13 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It is a good idea for a movie, and it starts promisingly. We all know the experience of a weekend trip that should be special but the nature of the relationship intrudes.

The actors are terrific. Lindsay Duncan is gorgeous. Jim Broadbent is like most middle aged men, you wonder why any woman would find them attractive. And Jeff Goldblum adds a bit of glamour.

The trouble is that, like most marriages, it is indeed private but boring. We don't really want to hear their little arguments, their failings, their history. We just want to know what is going to happen, and the answer is, not much. Anything would do, but it doesn't.

It should have been a TV drama, not a full length movie.
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sour-tasting romcom
davidgee23 October 2013
College lecturer Nick and schoolteacher Meg (Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan) take the TGV to Paris for their 30th wedding anniversary. He still dotes on her, but she's had the seven-year-itch for at least 23 years. She insists on moving to a more ritzy hotel and makes it plain she'd like to move on to a more ritzy husband. They run into an old college chum of Nick's (Jeff Goldblum) who's got a new young wife. A party at his apartment confirms Meg in her feeling that life has short- changed her.

This sour take on the middle-aged romcom is scripted by Hanif Kureishi in the style of Woody Allen. It has no more substance than a 30-minute TV sitcom - a cross between AS TIME GOES BY and ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE - which is stretched a bit thin at 93 minutes. The best scene involves a restaurant bill they can't afford, but the joke falls flat when it's repeated in the hotel. Jeff Goldblum phones in another variant on his usual rich rogue persona. Jim Broadbent's Nick is a solid if predictable take on Victor Meldrew. Lindsay Duncan's Meg is the best thing in the movie, a partially tamed shrew who thinks - wrongly - that she could have, should have, done better. Married couples - maybe even unmarried couples - may find this film leaves a bitter taste; I think it's meant to.
32 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A weekend that doesn't work
Red-12521 April 2014
Le Week-End (2013) is an English film directed by Roger Michell. Lindsay Duncan plays Meg, married to Nick (Jim Broadbent). They've been married for quite a while--probably 35 years or so. They aren't a happy couple, and they decide to return to Paris for a weekend to try to relive a time when they were happy.

The problem is that they don't like the hotel they can afford, and they can't afford the hotel they like. They don't like the restaurants they can afford, and they can't afford the restaurants they like. And . . . they don't appear to like each other very much either.

Nick was apparently very successful in college and graduate school. However, he has never fulfilled his early academic promise. At one point Meg tells someone, "I'm a teacher," but it wasn't clear to me what she taught, and at what level she taught it. And, more important, it wasn't clear that she derived any satisfaction from her work.

By coincidence, they meet Morgan (Jeff Goldblum), who lives in Paris. Morgan and Nick had been friends in graduate school. In fact, Morgan says that he considered Nick his mentor. However, unlike Nick, Morgan has had a fabulously successful academic career. He now has abundant funds, a new bestseller, and a young second wife who adores him. The contrast between Nick's life and Morgan's life is so obvious that it brings about revelations from Nick that are painful to hear.

I was prepared to enjoy this movie, but, ultimately, it didn't work for me. Jim Broadbent is a fine actor, as is Lindsay Duncan. But neither of them gave me much reason to care about them--as individuals, or as a couple. Having a meal in an expensive restaurant, and then sneaking out through the kitchen is supposed to be a charming exploit. I don't find it to be charming at all. In fact, I didn't find much that was charming about either of them. (Yes--Lindsay Duncan is very beautiful, and looks much younger than her actual age of 63. But that doesn't make her character charming.)

I kept waiting for the characters in the movie to come to some sort of resolution. However, that didn't happen. The film just dwindled away and then it ended. "Loved the concept," but the movie never delivered on what it promised. Too bad.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Film Review: Le Week-End/ www.nightfilmreviews.com
lucasnochez4 April 2014
Oh Paris, je t'aime!

What do you get when you mix the influence of French new wave director Jean-Luc Godard, the acting talents of Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan, the sturdy direction of Roger Michell and poised writing of Hanif Kureishi? What feels like the unofficial fourth entry to the Before Sunrise independent film trilogy, Le Week-End is a film that could easily be mistaken as the extended look at the lives of Jesse and Celine, years after their fateful meeting in Vienna.

There is something exquisite and magical with films set in Paris, a city that is most commonly known as the 'city of love'. And although Meg (Lindsay Duncan) and Nick Burroughs (Jim Broadbent) choose to revisit Paris after thirty years of marriage and re-live their honeymoon after a long and challenging life together, things don't exactly go how each of them planned. Instead, what surfaces is a film budding with sophistication, film history, and bittersweet revelations that showcase a world of fading lovers and seasoned couples.

Le Week-End is a film set in the fine wine capital of the world. Surrounded by couples holding hands, sharing moments of pure love and wonder, Meg and Nick have some serious marital issues to face, but instead decide to lather over them with the spectacular sights and sounds of the Eiffel Tower, the River Seine and upper-class dining and accommodations. Both highly irritated with each other's approach to life, their children and their relationship as a whole, Meg and Nick use the vacation as a means to reconnect. However, the couple unexpectedly run-into one of Nick's former student's and now renown author Morgan (Jeff Goldblum). Morgan invites Meg and Nick to a dinner party to celebrate the release of Morgan's latest literary achievement. However, Meg and Nick get a lot more than just dinner among friends, and instead their evening turns into a plethora of ultimatums and heartfelt realities.

The grand beauty of Le Week-End lies in the chemistry between Broadbent and Duncan. As two educators in their own sense, Nick a university professor and Meg a teacher, the two honeymooners surely belong to a class of people who are in constant pursuit of life experiences. Sadly, the couple, who have lived their lives catering to the needs of others, can't seem to get rid of their overly mature son, who has found his way back to basement of their home. Torn between what is right and what is necessary, Nick and Meg's parental approach is clearly outlined in the short snippets of calls Nick receives from their son. Thankfully, the heart of Le Week-End is easily found, not in the commentary of parenting, but in the depth of fleeting love, and Duncan and Broadbent share a hate to love for one another that could only be seen in some of the misunderstood, post modern works of European artists almost sixty years prior.

Meg and Nick use their thirty year wedding anniversary as a muse towards re-connecting. Meg, seeing the vacation as a 'last chance at love' for her and her husband, adopts a very go with the flow, careless attitude towards their spending and experiences in the Parisian city. Early on, it is clear that Nick is the money saver and principle earner in the relationship. While Nick sees Paris as an escape from their mundane lives in Birmingham, he also sees it as an opportunity to indulge in a weekend filled with romance and wild, kinky sex with his gorgeous wife–whom he still very much loves and longs for. Meg on the other hand is mostly repulsed with her husband, describing him as "making her blood boil like no body else'. Where Nick replies that that indeed is "the sign of a deep connection". Essentially, life happens. For every good, there is a bad, for every high, there is a low. Le Week-End showcases these highs and lows, few and far between.

While the couple travels together, they are mostly a duo of outsiders with one another. From the moment we meet the rambunctious Meg and patient Nick, we experience a dialogue between two people who are lost in translation, although, some how, both individuals find themselves speaking the same language. The witty screenplay by Kureishi (an author whose novel The Buddha of Suburbia was a novel I read in University) allows the internal thoughts of the characters to be read easily by the viewers and allow the actions of our characters to speak volumes. A city roaming with mimes, colourful characters and whacky personas, Meg and Nick find themselves lusting for the city of Paris to revive their emotions and expectations of one another.

It may not seem it, but aside from the fury and disagreements that Meg and Nick deal with, Le Week-End reminds viewers that "love is the only interesting thing" left in life, especially when you reach the age of our cinematic specimens. The answer may be love, but the factors determining this answer are the tools for the equation. Luckily for Michell, his lead couple is a pair of talented actors who devour their characters, expelling a familiarity of relationship woes between long-term couples and deteriorating lovers. Broadbent offers a special variation of the typical, artistic, working class Englishman. Full of well-upholstered manners, true English nuances and faint hints of British humour, he uses all of these subtle character traits to bring to life the habitual sexual urges of a man who has waited long enough to touch his naturally ageing, beautiful wife.

Want more? Read the full review at www.nightfilmreviews.com.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A simple and touching story about a long married British couple going to Paris for a romantic weekend.
TxMike25 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
We saw this on DVD, the extra is interesting as the writer and director (who also directed Notting Hill) had the idea for the story then went and spent a weekend in Paris to see what couples might do, to make the story seem more real. And that is a strong point of the movie, it seems very real.

The couple are Lindsay Duncan as Meg and Jim Broadbent as Nick. They have been married for 30 years and it seems their relationship has gotten a bit stale. So maybe a romantic weekend in Paris will rejuvenate things. But not so fast, there are some things boiling under the surface with both of them, making it a quite challenging weekend.

A pleasant surprise is Jeff Goldblum. I always enjoy his characters, he has a way about acting that takes a plain role and makes it more interesting than it has a right to be. Here he is Morgan, an old friend of Nick's from college. Morgan seems very well off, and very cheerful with his pretty, young, and pregnant second wife. He assumes Nick is equally well off.

In fact when Nick and Meg went to Morgan's place in the evening by invitation, with a number of guests, mostly intellectuals, Morgan proceeds to explain how Nick was his influence as a young man, how knowing Nick and the things he stood for propelled Morgan to success in his career. But Nick gave a quite different talk, and put everything into perspective. Things weren't going well at all.

At first it seems Nick and Meg are not age-matched very well but in fact the actors are almost the same age, he about 63 during filming and she about 62. They were celebrating 30 years.

My wife and I enjoyed it, in fact it allowed us to reminisce about our own trips to Paris and other parts of Europe, dealing with the foreign languages, the strange hotels and strange menus. All the main actors are superb.

SPOILERS: What Meg didn't know was Nick had been sacked from his job as a small college professor. Apparently he told a girl "If you would spend less time on your hair and more time on your studies..." and a complaint got him booted. What Nick didn't know is Meg was fed up with her teaching job and wanted to do something different, and it seemed that may mean leaving Nick completely. Which would have devastated him. But in the process they clearly realize how much they love each other, even though they found they could not pay their very high hotel bill when it was time to leave. Morgan to the rescue!!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A nod to Godard
ferdinand193213 February 2014
The premise of this piece should send a shudder into viewers. In fact it is handled quite well given the nature of the material, which, as some reviewers are aggrieved about, is not a bourgeois English experience of utter predictability.

It breaks the stereotype in two ways. It's a bitter experience for the two leads after years of marriage and still finding they care for each other through the layers of boredom. That friction adds something interesting, not great, but not entirely stale. The leads carry it well.

It also poaches some ideas from Godard's "Band a part" (The Outsiders). Well, so did Tarantino, and more obviously, but this is quote as the ending sequence makes plain as the man characters do the Madison from that film of the nouvelle vague.

It's a baby boomer experience to never grow old and Lindsay Duncan as Anna Karina, or Jim Broadbent as Sami Frey make a jarring, though amusing, nod to another time; a time which Anglo-Saxon audiences return again in French cinema.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Unable to Suspend Disbelief
i-rispin1 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
How this film has become such catnip to critics is beyond me.

The premise- that an experienced lecturer should be forced to resign over telling a girl to spend more time on her studies than her hair is ludicrous, however politically correct an institution might have become.

The interaction between the two leads is simply not credible. Meg, Nick's wife tells him over lunch that he is "too cautious". One might make such an observation within the first 5 years of a relationship, but after 30 years of marriage?

The bickering, intended to be funny, is neither funny, nor even bickering. To bicker is to good- naturedly argue about stuff which is essentially inconsequential. At various times Meg threatens to leave Nick, and threatens to go off with another man there and then, taunting Nick's insecurity. After exchanging wounding and generalised criticisms of each other, the viewer is expected to believe that within 5 minutes the couple can be kissing passionately.

This film is supposed to be a comedy. It is not funny. Nor does it work as drama, save potentially in the imaginations of a small tranche of pretentious academics, and some film critics, to whom this film may say something to them of their lives.
50 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wonderful and Candid
cantake811 February 2014
Apparently a lot of viewers approached this film with expectations. I had none. I didn't even know about the film prior to attending the screening.

These characters sound and move like real humans. This is not a film about Paris, this is a film about people, aging, mistakes regrets, anger, secrets, affection, thorniness, misbehavior and loyalty.

I've read the complaints of other lay reviewers and it's apparent that they should make their own films, because it's doubtful anyone else's will live up to their expectations -- especially if critics like it.

They should also remember that it is remarkably difficult to pronounce something as snobbish without sounding intensely condescending.
42 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A dirty weekend - they should have gone on their own!
flickernatic20 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Nick (Jim Broadbent) and Meg (Lindsay Duncan) return to Paris to relive their honeymoon 30 years on. Well, that's the idea, we're told, but from the start it's pretty clear that she, at least, does not want to be there. So they bicker a bit, engage in some highly dodgy sexual bantering, and meet up by chance with one of Nick's old mates (Jeff Goldblum). She is rather tempted to have a fling with one of the guests at a party given by the latter, while Nick lapses into a kind of resigned despair. But somehow they all manage to remain friends. Nick and Meg even manage some jolly capers while escaping from a restaurant without paying (except that they repeat the trick when leaving their very expensive hotel, which gives the impression that the director ran out of ideas and/or forgot that when you repeat a joke, the second time it isn't funny - unless you're say, Tommy Cooper).

Paris looks pretty good and it's all quite entertaining. But as a drama it falls flat. I'm not a big fan of Jim Broadbent though he is OK here. But he and Lindsay Duncan are not exactly Burton and Taylor so Nick and Meg's relationship lacks any real bite. It's all a bit sad, a bit lacklustre, perhaps even a bit lazy - or should that be cynical and slapdash? La-la how the life goes on!

Worth a look on a wet afternoon when you've nothing better to do. But don't put yourself out to see it.

(Viewed at Screen 2, The Cornerhouse, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK on 24 October 2013)
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A grubby little shocker (as in shocked it was made in the first place)
postmortem-books16 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
We went to Le Weekend not sure what to expect but had a vague idea it would be a reasonably light-hearted jaunt across Paris with a middle-aged couple enjoying a 30th wedding anniversary and trying to re-kindle their honeymoon adventures. The small cinema we visited was fairly full with the same age viewers (50-70) who undoubtedly expected the same. What we got - and what is stuck dreadfully in my mind - is the vision of Jim Broadbent crawling across the carpet asking Lindsay Duncan if he can sniff her crutch. Oh god, just writing that has brought up the scene like a lump of sick in the mouth. The character of Meg (Lindsay Duncan) is one of a complaining harridan who goes off in a huff if she doesn't get her own way although we learn later that Nick (Jim Broadbent) had had an affair some years before which has obviously soured their relationship. There is some kind of nonsensical denouement which revolves around the couple's sudden financial largesse but this is a film that doesn't travel well beyond the confines of the academic chatterati who will love it, darling. For the rest of we plebs, it seemed a load of pretentious drivel.
49 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Can't burn a film...
sharonlynnjoyce3 March 2014
I've only burned one book in my entire life, and it was a novel by Hanif K. At the time I had very little money to spend on non-essentials, and was so disappointed in his book that I wanted to get back the 14 $ I'd paid for it --utterly valueless--in some other form of entertainment. So I burned it in the fireplace.

I'd forgotten that until I saw this movie, scripted by the same author. Had forgotten how irritating his trite, lifeless dialog can be. I keep watching because the characters are so self-pitying and pathetic. They seem like they've been locked in a cave for 20 years and haven't had a real conversation in 30. Their relationship seems like a kind of awful prison. Real Philosophy professors are engaging, challenging, brilliant people...and they simply do not talk, think, or act like such insecure, lost milksops. (See the scene in Godard's Vivre sa Vie...there's a philosophy professor true to life)

Maybe its cathartic to hear one's deepest, most gruesome worst fears and thoughts put on screen like that. That is what Hanif does. Tabloid headlines made into dialog.

But its not art. Not what art should be, anyway.

Unfortunately I can't burn a film.

But Lindsay Duncan is beautiful enough to keep watching. It didn't cost me 14$. So its better than his book.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Tourism Ad
mwpm17 July 2017
A new genre of film is emerging. Hollywood is trying to sell them as the offspring of "Roman Holiday", but in reality they are nothing more than extended tourism advertisements. Whether its Julia Roberts in "Eat Pray Love", Steve Coogan & Rob Brydon in "The Trip" trilogy, or Diane Lane in "Paris Can Wait", the protagonist is compelled to travel, and their travels are accompanied by sight-seeing and food sampling. Whereas "The Trip" trilogy is honest about its advertising, films like "Eat Pray Love" and "Paris Can Wait" try to veil it under a thin plot. "Le Week-End" belongs to the same category as "Eat Pray Love" and "Paris Can Wait". Like "Eat Pray Love" the couple of "Le Week-End" pursue travel as an answer to their problems (in both cases, the problem is an unhappy marriage, but whereas "Eat Pray Love" follows a middle-aged woman escaping their marriage, "Le Week-End" follows an older couple firmly trapped in their marriage and seeking rejuvenation). The audience is compelled to ask: "Why travel? Why not a marriage counsellor?" Ostensibly, they have chosen travel because they have watched too many film like the one they are starring in. The true nature of a film like "Le Week-End" is revealed in the scenes that forego character and plot development for the sake of sight-seeing and food sampling. These scenes always included impressive shots of the architecture (here the Eiffel Tower, there the Louvre). And, despite their lack of substance, they are drawn out and indulgent (Lindsay Duncan samples a glass of wine, turns to Jim Broadbent, says, "That's the nicest thing I've ever put in my mouth"). The couple (and the film) is finally rejuvenated by the arrival of Jeff Goldblum. Need I say more? In closing, I don't know why I expected more from "Le Week- End". It's a Hollywood film like any other, and Hollywood has been increasing the presence of product placement in its films ever since E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial increased the sales of Reese's Pieces. When we're watching a Hollywood film, let's not pretend we're watching anything other than an extended advertisement.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lost Weekend
writers_reign11 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Darling of the BFI, the Academic-Pseud axis and hangers-on, Hanif Kurashi tones down his trademark graphic sex-laden scripts this time around, possibly in an attempt to prove he can write just as well as the big boys, alas ... On the other hand he does have some fine interpreters available and more than adept at fashioning silk purses out of sow's ears and who, for reasons best known to themselves, seem happy to snatch a soufflé from the jaws of the suet pudding masquerading as a script. A couple of weeks ago we - and I was among them - were of the opinion that Cate Blanchett had it in the satchel Oscar-wise but now she has some real competition in the shape of Lindsay Duncan, who walks away with this one from under the nose of Jim Broadbent, not exactly a slouch himself if anybody asks you. For good measure the whole thing is set in Paris and that alone is capable of outweighing the drek that Kureshi calls a script. See it for Duncan and for Paris, in any order you like.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Surprsingly Great Watch! 6/10
leonblackwood15 February 2014
Review: I really enjoyed this heart warming story of a middle age couple in Paris for there wedding anniversary. The writing is brilliant along with the acting by Broadbent & Duncan. I really didn't know what to expect from this movie, but I thought that I would give it a chance, and I was glad that I did. The storyline is funny, emotional and full of drama throughout. Jeff Goldblum was a great choice for his role and it's good to see him back on screen with his weird expressions and gestures. I give full credit to the writers who got the best from the leading actors and made the movie entertaining and a great watch.

Round-Up: What ever did happen to Jeff Goldblum? At one point, he was in massive Blockbusters like Independence Day and Jurassic Park, and then he just seemed to slip off the radar. It's was good to see him in this movie because he hasn't lost his unique way of acting. Jim Broadbent seems to be in quite a few movies in the latter part of his career. From Harry Potter to Moulin Rouge, his acting style is obviously loved by directors, and in this movie, he was brilliant. Lindsay Duncan was also a great choice for his wife who seemed pretty schizophrenic. Anyway, I couldn't see anyone else playing the roles in this movie.

I recommend this movie to people who are into there movies about a couple celebrating there wedding anniversary in Paris and questioning there marriage. 6/10
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Paris is not only for lovers
rickhouska2 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
An aging British couple, Nick and Meg, played by Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan, have come to Paris by train to celebrate their 30th anniversary. But there's a problem. He loves her, but not she, him. And, not far into the movie, Lindsay has proved herself the quintessential, mean-spirited bitch. Nevertheless, Nick's love for her persists, and no matter how hard he tries, she won't have any of it, though at times she hints otherwise. In what may be the most memorable scene, Nick seems to be making real progress when Meg tempts, then rejects an attempted carnal sniff. Fortunately, Nick and the story are saved when he meets an old friend, Morgan, played by Jeff Goldbloom, who invites them to a dinner party in his large, Paris apartment. Unlike Nick, Morgan is a success, and credits much of it to Nick, who sits and listens sadly to Morgan's praises. Later, at the dinner table, Morgan delivers a great self-congratulatory speech, with even more praise for Nick, who is then moved to publicly confess his failures, most notably his marriage to Meg. Nick's comments both embarrass and impress Meg, who now sees something in him she likes, and they leave Morgan's apartment with hopeful expectation, albeit short-lived. They are broke and can't pay the hotel bill. So, what to do? Of course, they walk out of the hotel, find a bar, and start downing drinks they can't pay for either...now looking very down, but not yet out, and still together. Before they hit bottom, Nick reaches out for help, in the same way as his moocher-of-a-son, whom he has just given the boot. Do Nick and Meg get a second chance? To know the answer, you will have to see the movie. And, after watching, you will wonder how many marriages resemble Nick and Meg's. Just be glad yours is not among them. Or, is it?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A delightful film - best watched if you're not too young-in-body
God-129 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The dialogue is modelled on 'Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf' and similar plays, so it might be difficult for modern ears to appreciate.

Crowd-sourcing and the notion of the wisdom of crowds has its place. Quite often a useful place, but certainly not always.

IMDb, an excellent place to get information on popular films, can be very misleading with good films that happen not to be popular.

I'm pleased that I ignored the 6.5 score of Le Week-End - if I'd taken it seriously, I'd have missed an absolute gem of a film...

Probably not a film for the young-of-body - hence, presumably, the misleading score.

It's really good fun, though, if you've an ear for good English humour - I'm not quite sure why the film's blurb calls them a 'British couple', either, it nearly put me off. They're undoubtedly an English couple. The humour would have been quite different if they'd been Welsh, Irish or Scotch.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting but slow
peter-ramshaw-18 July 2014
Well acted and poignant at times, this movie just missed out on being great because it is too slow. Sure, I realise it's a slow burn, a noir, all that but, at the risk of repeating myself, it was just too damn slow! And, worse, no resolution. Goldblum is again great, I just wish his part had done something of substance rather than just seem lofty. Likewise the female lead whose terrific performance was marred by the writer's determination to paint her as a bitch (or at least almost). The lead actor is terrific as he always is, and that's the problem with him. He's the same as he always is. There's little originality here and he comes across as a (very) poor man's 'Lost in Translation'. Terrific cast, great idea,disappointing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Romp through Paris with whining sexagenarians
Irie21219 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The genre, if it can be called that, is geriatric screwball comedy. Not enticing, though the premise held some promise: a trip to Paris to revitalize a tired 30-year-old marriage. Unfortunately for all concerned, including the audience, once Mr. and Mrs. Burrows get off the Eurostar train from London, everything goes wrong, for them and for the film.

Nick (Jim Broadbent) and Meg (Lindsay Duncan) are at no point sympathetic characters, nor is their marriage believable. The simplest way to relay the movie's failure is to catalog its many flaws, which is a list of implausibilities. Start with their home life: (1) Nick is dismissed as a professor because he suggested one of his students spend more time on her studies than her hair. Fired? Really? Even academia is not that petty. Anyway, as result, they are all but penniless in Paris. (2) Their marriage is so sexless that at one point he crawls toward her begging just to smell her crotch. (3) They refer to their children in the plural, but the only offspring that emerges in the plot is a derelict son who phones for money. Why two children if the plot only calls for one? Answer: lazy writing. (4) He had an affair years ago, and she's still punishing him for it-- sometimes. Other times, she buys him art books they can't afford. She is the very definition of fickle, while he's a grizzled Lloyd Dobler ("Say Anything").

Then there's Paris: (5) She hates the inexpensive Montmartre hotel room he booked-- her entire objection: "It's beige"-- and so flees for a taxi, with him rushing after shouting "Don't do this, Meg!" They drive around, meter ticking, until she sees the Plaza Athenee, one of Paris's most luxurious hotels--at least $700 per night. (6) He vandalizes the room by pasting mementos to a wall. (7) They run into an old friend of his (Jeff Goldblum with his signature quirks) who of course happens to be rich, so he can bail them out of their idiotic and expensive mistakes, such as (8) Casual scofflaws, they run from paying their bills at a restaurant, and at the Plaza Athenee.

I could go on, but recalling the flaws is as tedious as watching them in the first place. Broadbent and Duncan are fine in their roles, but Nick and Meg are inconsistent and often embarrassing to watch. Writer Kureishi and director Michell seem to want to have it both ways-- a comedy with a broken heart-- but there is little humor, and no heart.
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Worth the wait.
neilpurssey16 November 2013
Before reviewing I read a 'spoiler': "warning contains Jeff Goldblum" now that in itself was unfair but humour in all things is to be enjoyed but Mr Goldblum actually made the wait worthwhile. The wait? Well 93 minutes run time and about 25 before that I was wondering why? I wasn't suffering from itchy bum, I had been enjoying the acting, lighting, ambiance, feel or whatever but why? Then Mr G came on the screen and in as much as the early warning was unfair many could have played the role but his character put the previous 60 minutes or so into perspective and it made the whole worthwhile. I was entertained and I'm glad I watched. Just one proviso if you are over 55 and you've been married for over 25 years you might look for too many parallels but try not to. A pleasant film worth the wait, aka 'build-up'.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A couple goes to Paris for their 30th wedding anniversary, it is questionable if they may make it to their 31st.
Amari-Sali13 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Trigger Warning: Emotional Abuse

Since Moulin Rouge! I have found Jim Broadbent to be a fantastically odd actor. And while I will admit I haven't seen every last film he has been in since his role as Harold Zidler, it seems every time I saw him he was some eccentric character who easily became one of the film's highlights. So upon seeing his name attached to a drama film, I thought perhaps I should give him a chance in a role in which he is trying to play someone serious, and I'm quite glad I did.

Characters & Story

To celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary, Nick (Jim Broadbent) and Meg (Lindsay Duncan) head to Paris, the city of love. A place where we learn how absent love maybe in their relationship. For as much as you can see Nick loves Meg, and wants to be intimate with her, it seems Meg isn't as in love with Nick as she perhaps once was. She criticizes him harshly, while giving him a only a slight tease of sweetness, and as the movie goes on you can see the man's self-esteem has likely been beaten to its foundation since, at the end of the day, Meg just isn't happy. But, the question remains: will their marital problems of the present mean their 30th anniversary will be their last, or will they work things out and hopefully make it to their 31st?

Praise

I must admit my praise does come with me having to rethink it as I go along, if just because as much as I love the dynamic between Duncan and Broadbent, watching them does become depressing at times. If just because Duncan's portrayal of Meg is just so vicious that you feel sorry for poor Nick within 10 minutes. For not only is Meg hard to please, but seemingly on the verge of a mid-life crisis and stuck with this man who seems to be game with her new life changes, but only because the idea of being alone terrifies him. And often their relationship seems as uncomfortable for them as it is for you. Perhaps leading you to wonder why this isn't part of the critique? Well, I'm praising it because their relationship is so complicated that you can tell these two have been together for 30 years. You can visibly see Nick has become comfortable with her demeaning him, teasing him, and perhaps never becoming fully satisfied with who he is. Then, on the other end of things, you can see that Meg sort of likes how Nick still sticks in there with her, and repeatedly makes her feel desirable and wanted. So just as much as the two can make you feel depressed by the concept of being with someone 30 years and it becoming like their relationship, at the same time it shows this complexity which allows you to understand how no matter what Meg may say to Nick, and what he may have done in the past, or says in the present, there remains this sense of love between the two buried underneath it all.

Criticism

But, even with that said, truly until you reach almost near the end of the film when Morgan (Jeff Goldblum) comes about, this film can be slightly unbearable. For while you understand in the end how Meg and Nick's relationship works, until then it is really hard to see this old man damn near beg his wife for the affection she seems unwilling to give. And then when it comes to the insults she flings at Nick! Oh, none of them are good natured, "I mean what I say, but I'm going to say it in a nice way so your feelings don't get hurt." No, Meg says the type of things of which I'm sure if Nick was younger, and thought more highly of himself, he would probably seek a divorce for Meg is emotionally abusive. And honestly I found what she said so bad that I felt a trigger warning was needed in case someone had an emotionally abusive partner in the past.

Overall: TV Viewing

While this is a good movie with excellent performances, Meg makes it hard to say this is "Worth Seeing." If just because she is the type of character who triggers either pent up anger for Nick not really fighting back, or some sense of depression for you can see Nick is beaten and bruised, but has no one else to turn to when it comes to buttering him up. And while Morgan does this to a point, he isn't Nick's wife. But perhaps the main reason I'm marking this as TV Viewing is because it really does take a while to get into the story and get past Meg's abuse and understand the relationship dynamic.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pretentious, boring, offensive tosh
Tin Tin-312 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Hard to know where to begin with this one. I think the 'good things' about this film begin and end with its Paris location - though even then, the cinematography leaves a lot to be desired. I think it was about five minutes in before I began wondering: 'how do films as poor as this get made?'.

There was no credibility in the mind-numbing script whatsoever - the lines of female protagonist (Meg) are just dripping with meaningless pretension and the credibility of the film overall is stretched to beyond breaking point with the way Meg speaks to her husband (Jim Broadbent doing his best with the appalling working material).

Meg's childish and anti-social behaviour throughout the film give the lie to this being a 30th wedding anniversary trip. If someone I had been married to for three decades spoke to me in the manner Meg does to her browbeaten husband, I'd be looking at an entirely different 30 years.

This film is so bad it's genuinely offensive. The chattering classes will love it, but if asked, will have trouble explaining why.

To be both boring and offensive takes some doing but Kureishi's script has managed it with ease. Avoid at all costs.
33 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed