The greatest movie ever made..!

Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Lack of good storyline.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Early in this film, Karl Lagerfeld hides from the camera behind a magazine as he informs us he does not want to be photographed without his sunglasses on. A later shot catches the legendary designer through a window 'sans specs' and it feels like the filmmaker has captured him in a rare vulnerable moment. This is but one indication of the kid gloves used by the director in this mildly interesting borderline puff piece of a portrait documentary. Much of the film features the back of Lagerfeld's head as the camera is lead about by his ubiquitous silver pony tail down catwalks, into town cars, up private jet ramps, and behind photo shoots. Often it feels like the POV of a typical fashion industry fawning lackey nipping at the master's heels. Do not expect deep insights from the minions in his sphere, as Lagerfeld's guarded commentary (in french) is the only real voice in the film beyond the soft-ball questions lobbed in by the off-screen director. It seems clear that access to the subject was at risk and any offense was to be avoided. One can easily imagine the editor considering how every cut would be received by Lagerfeld when the movie would first be screened by its' 'star.'Relatively little of the designer's work is featured here and we are left with more sense of the man's personal style than his contributions to the fashion world. The few photographs of his life included are presented without chronology or context and are concentrated in comparatively concise sequences. Too much screen time is spent lingering on the gorgeous male models consistently spinning in his orbit.Not a bad film by any means, but risk-free and superficial. The closest we get to real incite on the fashion icon is when he references his mother who it would seem was one interesting gal. I would really like to have heard from others who know the man (collaborators, rivals, critics, family, etc) though I'm certain many live in fear of him. Does the man have a temper? He seems the type but the viewer gets no indication of any personality flaws, quirks, fears, weaknesses and consequently, real depth of character.

Lagerfeld confidential is the title of this documentary, and I mused on its overt reference to, well, L.A. Confidential: can it be that fashion is the regime where a new noir sensibility can be glanced at, or through? It sounds ridiculous, yet there is a precise point I want to make.Let's take wikipedia's definition of the genre: "Stylish crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize moral ambiguity and sexual motivation." The first part may sound campy, though the second part makes what we witness on the screen really fall in the category, albeit with a twist. Lagerfeld does not back off from questions that seem personal, or that deliver his vision, a word on which he emphasizes and repeats some times. Some reviewers were mesmerized by that vision, and up to a certain point, myself included, it is only that Lagerfeld is permitted, given his position, to "be" mesmerizing. He does not have competition, and this is something I will return to. He corrects the interviewer/director when he goes into trying to ask elaborately, with detours a simple question about his homosexuality, and when did he first feel it. This is charming and straightforward. Later, when he says that he is no more a practitioner of sex,he reprimands the director for graphically rephrasing his avowal. That is well-said and shows prestance. It can also be completely artificial, not at all spontaneous, or truly confessional, as in the beginning when, splendidly, the director calls him in a friendly manner Karl (that is the first word we hear in the film), and he is everyday enough as not to respond immediately; and although we can sense it, and because we can sense it the magic augments, instead of diminishing. He really cannot be someone that counts on being accepted in terms of reality, a word he uses twice when discussing how close one can get to another person, and, the second time, when he adds that he wants to be someone glimpsed at, the film appropriately ends, leaving us with a whiff of something we barely scented, although we would like a full bite! But, even if it is completely premeditated as an endeavor of a film, it should be as it is.Back to the film noir question: we see a lot of gorgeous interiors, models, jets, the easiness of transcontinental flights as if with a cab, food, attention, professional level or not, photos of his childhood, youth and early middle age,footage of his first collection for Chanel, all seething with elegance, aloofness, power, hypocrisy, money, insights and what you will, as befits a film noir attitude and atmosphere. OK, but is there something more than atmosphere? So, what are the two main characters featuring in a film noir? The femme fatale, of course, and the powerful man the hero, or anti-hero, confronts, in order to save and take her, usually shooting the powerful kingpin in the end. Is it not, to put it quickly, that Lagerfeld is the two, at the same time? And the femme fatale (although we just get a glimpse, in photo, of his signature fan), and a Caesar (as he was once termed). And yes, his own man, that is one we don't get through his art, how can it be that he assumes such more than grande dame airs without being effeminate or ridiculous, but steely, unaffected. Perhaps it is what he says, seriously and honestly, I think, that he is hardworking, but not serious.It is only now that a film, or documentary, like this could be made. He has no antagonism, that is, to put it bluntly, YSL is dead. His oracular-casual manner would not be possible, or have the same empowering effect, were his once rival alive. Having once read YSL's biography, where Lagerfeld's scathing, jealous remarks were printed, thus showing, well, simply, a humane (and as it goes on such occasions and personalities, unfortunate)portrayal,it makes the film's transparency somewhat one-sided, even for the complexities of surface effects. I don't pass judgement. I would even say that, having seen the footage of his first Chanel collection, I was amazed at how not at all dated and how elegant his work still is. I cannot say that for most of YSL's 80's collections, that are bizarrely dated and inspired at the same time. Hence, some of the bitterness may not seem outreached, even though I cannot, on the other hand, sympathize with his judgement on his fellow worker. But perhaps it is just this, that they were not just workers, one does not simply works for fashion, as Lagerfeld states matter-of-fact at some point, but being visionary, you don't disavow rivalry. That may seem trivial, yet I think is crucial foregrounding, for we are not dealing with, simply (whatever this means), film, or documentation, or someone's portrait, but with something that in a way involves some other aspects of history, simultaneous or earlier, in order to appreciate what, in the end, escapes itself: no, Lagerfeld seems to say constantly, forget your preconceptions, there is nothing but surface here, and, the hard thing is, surface is a deadly serious matter: take it or leave it! But in order to do this, history cannot just be an earlier photo of oneself, unless it is like shots of a handsome youth, with a gratuitous edge, early one morning.

Love the feeling for being an insider, follow the camera I am like there in Karl's life, what things he loves in life, how much he loves reading, how hard he works, reads, thinks, creates almost in any corner in his living, you are like going with him to different cities, love his passion in making, in life, you can truly understand his solitary life is a gift and love the ease he has in his moves yet profoundly...though the film is poorly made and I wondering why Karl Lagerfeld would give Rodolphe the job to do his documentary, since there are tons of talents could do much better than this one, but,on the other hand, as you get to know Karl for real...it is not hard to know why, I guess he is a very real and easy person, he might take this kind of depth of the film fine, you would still know he had a lot to say in life and he is not hiding any words from you if you just watch with a sensitive eyes, and an open mind.

I saw this film at the Stockholm Film festival. Before watching I read some reviews on other websites and found criticisms for the lack of depth and how much you really get to know the man. Well I was pleasantly surprised. You don't get to know his childhood story and how he became such an icon, but what you do get is a glimpse into his world and some of his philosophies. I actually preferred this rather than knowing in what year he did this or why he did that. He has a tremendous grip on life and there is a good chance you will walk away after watching this film and reflect on some of his insights.The shots are interesting and the pace of the movie is excellent. I was not bored. The only disappointing thing was how abruptly the movie finished.Overall very good though.