best movie i've ever seen.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

James Miller (William Shimell) is in Tuscany to do a reading of his latest book where he praises copies in art over the need for originality in most people's minds. A French antiques dealer (Juliette Binoche) comes to the reading with her son but he forces her to leave early. He later tracks her down and she drives him around the countryside without a destination. A café owner mistakes them for a married couple. Then the question arises whether it's actually true.Juliette Binoche is dressed down but is as alluring as ever. The first half is aimless wandering and can get meandering but Binoche is always fascinating. Shimell is great at being the cool academic. Binoche takes a big turn and he's able to follow her. There are logic questions about why the son doesn't seem to know James if they're actually married. Of course, it could simply point to them play acting although they are so emotional and specific in their conversation. It's a really fascinating turn. I wish it comes sooner and reveals more about their relationship.

This is actually a totally different approach to cinema. Is it original? We wouldn't know, but it is definitely great. There are various ways of approaching this film. There is a lot of philosophical questions being raised and answered partially or fully through out the film. One way I like to look at this film is as two journeys with no definite separating point. Somewhere at the middle of the film, the relationship between the two characters change so we get to look at the things in life (art) in a different way. In the first half, you see a happy male who is satisfied with his being while in the second half, he is someone who has been married for 15 years, and unsatisfied with his state of being. The lady is more satisfied in the second half despite being emotional and vulnerable. There is a serious philosophical discussion about what is the right way to approach things. In the first half, the independent man doesn't care about the consequences of actions in general. He thinks things are just the way they are and we should not try too hard to change it. In the second half, he starts acting exactly opposite to his own earlier philosophy as the lady takes control in a socially acceptable relationship. It was interesting to see that the director used the term Mise' en Scene to credit himself at the end as this film does not fall under the Hollywood definition of drama.

I came across the film when researching a piece I was writing on Plato's ideas of beauty and aesthetics. Although Plato isn't for everyone I thought this film really helped my students understand some of his central concerns relating to the difference between an idea, a reality and an imitation. In our class discussions on Plato's notions of Mimesis and Diegesis, this film greatly helped. The film forces us to wonder to what extent the relationship between the two central characters is real, or an imitation of a once real relationship. It asks is a real relationship any better than a certified copy i.e a fake relationship where both parties pretend it is real. That is the central question - the value of the authentic versus the value of the fake.

There is no action except talking, unless you figure that two people getting in and out of a car is action. The movie is essentially one long conversation between James and a women, billed as "Elle" (Juliette Binoche). James is an art historian and Elle is an antique dealer specializing in art. James has just written a book, "Certified Copy" which asks why good reproductions should not be equally as valuable as originals. The book appears to be one of those that takes an idea of some merit and intellectualizes it to death, like asking if an original of anything exists, or if we are only DNA reproductions of our parents, or if a tree is not to be considered an original work of art? The conversation struck me as only a slight cut above what you might hear in a typical college dorm.Halfway through we are thrown a curve ball. While at a restaurant James steps out to take a phone call during which the proprietor dispenses wisdom to Elle about male/female relationships, like how a wife should be happy that her husband works, since work is necessary for a man, allowing the wife to live her own life. The proprietor mistakes Elle and James for husband and wife and Elle does not dispute that assumption. From here on I was left to deduce whether James and Elle had known each other in the past and were play-acting at the beginning, or weather they had just met and were play-acting after James' return to the restaurant.Perhaps a point is being made about the relationship between perception and reality, or that maybe perception *is* reality. There was a scene between Elle and her young son Julien in a café where he asks her why James did not sign his book using Julien's surname. This question so upsets Elle that she runs out of the café. I thought that there must be some significance in that scene. Does James have an alias with the same surname as Julien? Is James Julien's father out of wedlock? I could not ultimately make any reasonable inferences about this scene, though I feel it is of importance. In the end I found the message being delivered, if there is one, so muddled that I lost patience in trying to figure it out. I found James to be a cynical, pretentious, obnoxious, and petulant pedant. The main positive is Juliette Binoche who is almost always worth watching no matter what movie she is in. While her performance is not without interest here, it was not enough to save the day for me. The production values are high and there are some nice scenes of the Tuscany countryside.