M-Net officially turns 30 years old today – celebrating three decades of bringing viewers across the African continent premium TV content

Reeva Steenkamp's best friend finally breaks her silence with beautiful tribute on Instagram

Saint Laurent

2015-04-17 10:29

What it's about:

A look at the peak ten years in the the hedonistic, bohemian life of acclaimed French designer, Yves Saint Laurent.

What we thought:

You wait all your life for one biopic about Yves Saint Laurent to come along, only for two to come along at once. I'm kidding, of course. Only one of these biopics actually reached these shores – the equally creatively titled, Yves Saint Laurent is MIA – and, far more pertinently, if Saint Laurent is any indication of its real-life subject then I really can't imagine anyone waiting a day, let alone a lifetime, to pay good money to spend even five minutes of their time with this insufferable bore.

Lucky me though, I did get to  spend, or should I say “do”, my time with this insufferable bore! But not for five minutes. Oh, no, not for five minutes. I had the pleasure of losing a full two and a half hours of my life to this horrible hell of a film – two and a half hours of my life that will only mean anything if you, dear readers, heed my warnings and avoid Saint Laurent like the black death. I usually encourage people to go and make up their own minds about films - and I do certainly hate to complain when I'm being paid to write about a film that I've watched for free - but this is one time where I can honestly, truly, genuinely say: I suffered so you don't have to.

I would say that Saint Laurent is less fun than watching paint dry, but, to be honest, I don't actually see much difference between these two activities. No, wait, that's not entirely true. The experience of watching Saint Laurent is pretty much the equivalent of watching paint dry, while someone just out of reach slowly drags their nails across a freshly sand-papered blackboard for hundreds upon hundreds of hours. It really is less fun than watching paint dry, after all.

To say that Saint Laurent is a bad film would be to give it far too much credit. It's a nothing of a film about boring vacuous people doing boring vacuous things over a ten year period that actually feels like its unfurling in real time. This does, of course, make it relatively difficult to review. “Bad” I can do, but the cinematic equivalent of staring into the abyss? I barely even know where to start.

I would say that the plot is terrible, but it doesn't have a plot. I would say that the characters are less layered than the raw materials with which Saint Laurent created his fashions but even that would be to overstate the characterization in the film. I would even say that the dialogue is shockingly flat but in face of the twenty-minute scene of a bunch of non-entities in suits discussing the intricacies of the fashion business, “flat” doesn't quite begin to cover it. Oh and there are, technically speaking, actors all over the film but since they have less than nothing to do, they're not really worth mentioning. I can't even say that the period-specific soundtrack saves it because, a cool Velvet Underground number aside, it doesn't even do that.

Or, to put it simply, Saint Laurent is a biopic about an artist that tells us absolutely nothing about either the artist or his art. I don't generally give the slightest damn about fashion (as anyone who's seen the way I dress can attest to) but, amazingly, I left Saint Laurent even more nonplussed about the whole industry/ artform. As for the man himself, I knew absolutely nothing about him going in and I knew even less coming out – which is, I suppose, something of an achievement at least.

Now, this being an art film in French, it has received its inevitable glowing reviews but lets not kid, this is the sort of art film that gives art movies a bad name. It's quite prettily shot, I admit, but it is otherwise a pointless, indulgent, pretentious, uninteresting and utterly soulless piece of crap that has the audacity to demand two and a half hours of its audience's time. Just shameful.

Read more on:    movies

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

Anthony Haahjem 2015-04-17 01:46 PM
LOL Ilan, you should encourage all your haters to go watch this. After the up-hill you've gotten from some of them perhaps they deserve it? Just saying :-)
IZZY 2015-04-17 11:01 PM
Ka 2 i gat yo bck man!!
Ilan Preskovsky 2015-04-18 06:42 PM
Hahaha, Anthony. Though in this case the phrase "I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy" definitely applies!
Jaco Wium 2015-04-19 09:10 PM
Poor reviews are usually very informative, when they're written from a base of knowledge. And then some poor reviews are just poorly written as well, containing little to no useful information about why the movie gets a thumbs-down. Like this one. Tell us something about the director, about the cinematography, the actors, dialogue, mise-en-scene, anything. Don't tell us what others think about your dress sense - that is not relevant at all.
Lindsay 2015-04-29 02:24 PM
I totally agree. This was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Slow, boring, Disgusting. Hated every second of it. We thought it was nearly finished (thank G-d) And asked someone how much longer..... Another hour! That was it. We left. Quite honestly a hideous film.

Recent Reviews

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

Just another typical Tom Cruise action film, with nothing to get too excited about. The film is loaded with action-film stereotypes and cheesy one-liners. Read More »
Add your review

Hands of Stone

2016-10-14 07:38

Hands of Stone is a bland, unlikable portrayal of a real-life boxer that struggles to hit the highs of Rocky IV let alone Raging Bull or the original Rocky. Mark this one down as “for boxing fanatics only”. Read More »
Add your review

There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.