If this is "Birdman" for female actors, then we aren't paying attention. We're lazy, lazy people with no real respect for women. In "Birdman," the main character gets to talk about the pain of human life -- universal feelings amongst all of us. He gets to rail at a snobby critic for that critic not having ever created anything and been vulnerable to criticism. The conversations are about art, creating, acting, being judged, growing up, becoming irrelevant, finding relevance, relationships with wives and daughters and antagonizing co-workers, the list goes on. With "Birdman," the main character gets to have a second voice that is his -- another version of him -- which is so much more artfully and intelligently done. "Birdman" was a brilliant film. "Sils," by comparison, is limp and slow, not at all nuanced, and super lazy as a thought exercise. The Hollywood voice-over during the trailer would sound something like: "This one's old. This one's young. WHO WINS?" And to be clear, that's not what _I_ think of Juliette Binoche and KStew. That's how dumb and simplistic this move is. The currency of youth is the only value a woman offers, let's talk? Bah! That's a privileged, small man's view, and an old man's view from a culture that values women mostly as sex objects and mother/mystery-goddess blah blah blah. What a pointless way to see half of the population. Beyond the supposition that these two movies don't compare, this move was strongly peppered with problems, moments that make you roll your eyes, and a lack of clarity. Over and over again, I kept thinking, "Where did this conversation begin?" "Why is Maria laughing so hard and so fakely? Is that bad acting, or is it intentional to show her discomfort?" "Why is Val suddenly so angry? Did something happen?" Look, if Val had been her personal assistant -- and clearly an adept and experienced one -- for so long, she would _know_ who this woman was. Val would've been familiar with Maria. Their relationship wouldn't have been so burdened by a time alone. So, her sudden disgust with Maria made no sense. Any long term, mutually beneficial relationship involves understanding and accepting the other person's foibles. So, for Val to so quickly become irked at Maria to the point of abandoning her in the Alps without a map -- whaaaht? Where did that come from? They disagree, so Val tries to make Maria's life end like Helena's did in the play? Or, no wait. Maybe not, b/c now Maria is alive and being offered a part in a futuristic movie, b/c she's a "timeless" creature. Oh. okay. Why did Wilhelm's wife burn his scripts but save a couple pages? Why the intro of some past lover Maria hates, but she gives him her room number -- even though this actress should have more self-respect than that -- and then we never see him again? Why does Val go along with Maria if she finds Maria's opinions and condescension so annoying? What happened between Val and Ber(nt?)? Why focus on the new pages in the play if we're not going to see how they change the ending of the play? Oh, because the ending of the movie changed? Ugh. Really? The relationship stressors were forced and not shown. The story was scattered and created a totally forced sense of loneliness only when it needed to. The characters outside of Val and Maria were one-note. (And frankly, the advertisements for Switzerland were not very well masked to be enjoyable. Lord, the number of long scenes rolling over the mountains. It's not as pretty as it is in real life. Cut that out!)I feel sorry for Juliette Binoche and KStew. They were good. KStew is growing, and I hope she continues to hone her art. Juliette Binoche was kind of amazing running her lines as Helena. My heart flew into my chest when she cried out and cleared the kitchen table's contents onto the floor. I felt something in that one moment, where the rest of the movie made me feel nothing but a mild sense of resentment at a male dominated hierarchy.

To begin, this film is pretentious twaddle. Full of the kind of cultural self-congratulation that has disfigured so many weightless French films in recent years. Ten lines of text for a review of this bland and boring dog's breakfast? Not worth your time or mine to continue. But, according to IMDb's guidelines, I must go on. The director's attempts to set up little mysteries here and there with hanging plot-lines are ineffective to dispel the film's stifling air of inconsequentiality. He also trots out a number of special effects, with the occasional aim, I suppose, of showing a character's mental or emotional state. It is all rather pointless. This swamps whatever gifts of characterization the actresses try to bring to their roles. (The actors, by the way, rarely rise above the level of the so-so, and are soon forgotten.) But don't take my word for all this: go to Richard Brody's review in the New Yorker issue of April 16, 2015. There he lays out, for all to read, the film's many mediocrities.

Ambiguity is the key world of this film. You are the major actor in the sense that your interpretation makes the film. Each scene is so ambiguous that you can always interpret it in various manners so in the end _you_ are the director. When Maria and Val work on the text, rehearse the play, the feelings are so mingled that you are the one who decide if they are those of Helena- Sigrid or rather Maria-Val. Reality is entangled. I loved the Alps hiking shots and overall the mysterious Maloja snake. I would have rated it a 9 to the Writer-Director Olivier Assayas but reduced it to a 8 because I was disappointed in Juliette Binoche's performance. She is usually better than in this film, it is as if she didn't feel like acting this character, a bit like what happens in the film itself. At several occasions her laugh is artificial and fake. She is obviously ill at ease in this character, which proves what I wrote before about entangled reality between the film itself and the play prepared in the film. I'm not sure I am very clear but those who have seen and felt/perceived the movie as I, will understand.

I watched this movie in a cinema in Paris - more or less by chance because I only went there to see the cinema - not the movie. The cinema is a Japanese pagoda. It used to be the Japanese ambassador and his wife's residence. There is a nice zen garden in front and impressive wall paintings with Japanese war battle scenes.When the film was half over it became interesting, because Juliette Binoche (> 50) and her assistant Kristen Stewart (< 30) are stripping in a lake. Binoche gets completely naked but Stewart unfortunately does not. She keeps her bra on. For the rest of the movie I was upset that it had not been the other way round.But one could have known this before, because Juliette gets naked in almost every movie she makes and Kristen Stewart is American.Then the assistant leaves because she finds Switzerland "too provincial", which makes the whole story a bit implausible because she was herself too provincial to take her clothes off before.Then the actress (Binoche) feels frustrated because she is old.In the end the "clouds of Maria Sils" move through the valley.I was nevertheless lucky because I was sitting in this fancy Japanese cinema to watch the wall paintings all the time. If ever you come to Paris, do go there an buy a ticket - whatever the movie is...