Lack of good storyline.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

It can be said that French cinema has always had its fair share of daring films. These are films which have challenged viewers' notions about understanding a film through what it contains and how it is perceived by viewers.La Moustache is one such French film which mocks viewers as a hard to crack puzzle but fails to connect emotionally with viewers due to its absolute lack of coherence which is a much sought element in the field of cinema.Before directing films including this film in question,Emmanuel Carrère enjoyed a good literary career. However,"La Moustache" is a major disappointment as it does not give viewers enough material to be able to answer numerous unanswered questions.As the casting of this film is nice,watching Emmanuelle Devos,Mathieu Amalric and leading actor Vincent Lindon is a consolation even at a time when the film's leading man travels aimlessly as far as Hong Kong in order to understand his life's raison d'être due to an incident involving the proverbial mustache.Lastly,what would shock the viewers the most about this film is that towards the end all scattered pieces are neatly arranged to give a sense of relief to viewers.However, viewers cannot be underestimated as they choose their relief in cinema using own methods.

La Moustache opens with a man thinking about possibly shaving his moustache. There are theories in both spiritual and scientific circles that postulate that whenever we make a decision like this we in fact make them both. We "filter" out the decision that we "didn't" make and continue to live our normal seemingly-linear life, but another reality exists, just as real as "this" one, in which we made the "other" decision.To understand this movie in a multiple-timeline context, we have to back up to the beginning of the main character's adult life (before the movie starts), in which he made the decision to grow a moustache at all. In timeline A he never grew one, in timeline B he always grew one since he could. The movie thus begins in timeline B. To keep things simple, let's pretend there are only these two timelines to worry about.The movie opens with the main character making the decision to shave his moustache. In one reality, timeline B, he keeps it. We don't see this reality for the next week or so of his life. Instead, the decision to shave his moustache is so jarring that he "jumps" to timeline A, or more accurately he jumps to timeline A but elements of timeline B are still known to him, such as the photographs of his vacation, the license in his wallet, and his overall consciousness and memories are still from timeline B. Most of the movie, however, takes place in timeline A.The fact that he is caught between timelines is psychologically disturbing to him and his wife, neither of whom understand the predicament he is in, and assume that he is either going crazy or, as he assumes at times, someone may be playing an elaborate prank on him.Overhearing that his wife might send him to a mental institution, he escapes to Hong Kong. He immediately misses his wife and writes a postcard to her that he will be back by the time she gets it, but doesn't mail it. He takes a ferry from the city side to the airport side of a river, but before boarding the plane, changes his mind again and goes back on the ferry. Then he _keeps on_ going back and forth across the ferry until the end of the day when it closes. He never does go back to the airport.The ferry riding is a very interesting element in the film. A decision - the decision to shave his moustache, was done hastily in the beginning of the film. Again, another decision, to not get on the plane and get back on the ferry, was made quickly. Was he perhaps trying to "trick time" into getting him back into the right timeline? Or is the ferry simply a way to experience the same space over and over again - a "sameness" - that is in fact "different" every time (every time he rides the ferry there are new people, and he sits in a different place, etc. Even the chairs on the ferry seem to have adjustable backs on them that can swing one way or another, so that the rider can make a decision to face backwards or forwards. Only the ticket seller is the same, and she never seems to recognize him or wonder why he is riding back and forth) Normally we experience sameness (e.g. going to work) that can seem very much the same every time (same co-workers, similar work, etc.) and the ferry is a break from that. Or does the ferry "between" the city and the airport represent his state of "betweenness" of the timelines? He doesn't want to go back to France, where they might put him in an institution, but he doesn't want to go to his Hong Kong hotel, where he will be missing his wife. He decides to stay "between" for this day, and he seems content in this between-ness. He doesn't seem that nervous or worried on the ferry. He is cordial, even smiling to teenage schoolgirls that are giggling at him. He is learning to be OK with betweenness.The movie then jumps to what seems like days later (or perhaps even longer) and the main character now has a moustache grown out. The moustache being present is the catalyst to get him back to timeline B, and when he gets back to his hotel his wife his there, and it is as if she has been there the whole time, with him, on vacation.That night he asks if she would like to see him without a moustache, and she says that she might like to have him try it. This is a different answer than at the opening of the movie, where she says that she has never seen him without it, and she doesn't seem to be that into the idea of him shaving it. He shaves the moustache, but stays in timeline B. Perhaps this time the move is not so jarring because he has done it before. Or perhaps it is because his wife seems more approving this time while they are happy on vacation. Or perhaps it is because he has learned to live in and accept "betweenness" after his experience on the ferry. All is well. Or is it? As the lights dim in the room, the viewer is wondering if he will wake up in timeline A all alone.

I watched this movie because the idea was intriguing. I felt right away that it wasn't going to have much of an ending; it's not really the sort of story that would ever have a solid ending, unless it was an episode of the Twilight Zone, which it clearly was not meant to be.So I can accept the weak ending, and I'll even accept the analysis of one of the user reviewers here, Richard Burke (or was it Robert) whose analysis struck me as completely reasonable and well though out, and thus accept that the movie more-or-less makes sense.The problem is, this is a really boring movie. I don't know what the people who talk about it being "suspenseful" are thinking, because this movie moves like grass growing. It is so slow that after the first half hour, I put it on fast forward (the advantage of subtitles is you can watch a movie like that). Even at double the ordinary speed, it was still slow moving.

Maybe this movie does not follow normal or accepted modes of exposition. Maybe what is infuriating some of the posters is that they have been fooled into thinking that it is a 'typical' movie - albeit with a somewhat strange premise - and that it will resolve like similar movies (Vertigo, Sixth Sense come to mind).Actually, it has more in common with surrealist movies by directors like Luis Bunuel (i.e. 'Andalusian Dog') than Hitchcock, Shyamalan or Lynch. I must admit, I didn't come this understanding at first. I was tired when I watched it and knew nothing about it beforehand. I watched it through to the end and then sat there stewing and wondering what I had just watched.The story is told through the eyes of the main character, Marc, but unlike Bunuel or Dali, this director did not scream 'dream' or 'hallucination' at the audience. Instead, you are lulled into believing that you are 'viewing' a story unfold rather than being in the story - inhabiting Marc's point of view.I felt the frustration that someone who is going through a breakdown (or nightmare) might feel. Feeling betrayed by those close to you (Bruno and Agnes discussing the 'chemical strait-jacket' she slipped into his drink) - allowing emotion to override logic (why DIDN'T he show those pictures to Agnes??). Taking for granted that it was moving in a temporally forward direction rather than picking up at the middle moving to the beginning then winding up at the... beginning? I am confused and betrayed, Marc is confused and betrayed. Many viewers probably felt ripped off (judging from some of the comments on this forum). What did I (Marc) imagine? What was real? Who are the villains? Are there villains? Was this a dream? Did I have a psychotic episode?You can be angry at being tricked into believing many things in this movie. Tricked by the style that doesn't clue you into its intentions causing you to walk away unsatisfied. Tricked by the dead-end narrative lines carried by Hitchcock or Lynchian devices that don't deliver the implied payoff. And unlike a movie such as the Sixth Sense, going back to review it for hints of the ending is pointless. We all know he had a mustache in the photos. We all know he went to Hongkong by himself (don't we?).It might be that the great sin of this movie is that its premise of irreality was never signaled. Everything appeared real - just as it might appear to a victim of mental illness.