This is a very odd motion picture and quite flawed in many ways. One way it is certainly not flawed and an element that truly works beautifully is the performance of Emily Watson as the perplexed, devoted wife. She is mesmerizing when on screen and missed badly when she is not in a scene. Her incredible work here is some of her best and it elevates the entire film. It is amazing how Watson can look so tragically homely in spite of being such a lovely woman in reality. The humanity and depth she gives her character is remarkable and a testament to her talent. Certainly the most gifted actor of our time, Watson gives amazing performances in every film she makes, whether a small part or as the lead. Everything about the woman is completely breathtaking and that her work in cinema has not been yet recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is nothing less than an outrage.

One of the most powerful meta- movies ever made, this one has the great Giamatti playing to his strengths, i.e., playing himself. ;-). But this one is much more than that. It tackles the subject of desperation, existentialism(?), smuggling, power play and so forth, and moves seamlessly back-and-forth between these themes/aspects without missing a beat that we're never left overwhelmed by everything that's going on. Also, it helps that the whole surreal setting, and the feeling of being completely overwhelmed by the insurmountable odds surrounding our lead meta-character is dizzyingly Kafka-esque as well, and that only adds to the movie's strengths.I'm sure there will be comparisons drawn with 'Being John Malkovich', and not having seen that yet (yeah, I know), I cannot comment. However, there is a lot of sincerity that has been put into this effort, and along with that, the great performances, and the uniquely weird screenplay, somehow I cannot help feeling that this just might strike a chord with those that give it a chance. Performance-wise, while Emily Watson and David Strathairn are great in their roles, this is squarely, and justifiably, Paul Giamatti's movie. As he is wont to do so even in cases where he's slumming, he simply owns every frame he's in, and the meta-nature of the entire endeavor doesn't seem to bother him any, though this has to be perhaps the most exposed role he's ever done, and somehow I think it might never have been easy having to go through few of the motions his character, a.k.a, himself, has to go through, while remembering that this is just another role, and he has a life to get back to.I was lucky to watch this on the big screen during the 1st week of its limited release, and recommend it to one and all, since such works are rarities in themselves.

Well, the reviews made this sound fun.Apparently there is supposed to be humour in this film and some reviews suggest that it is even supposed to be clever.It's a long, grinding bore. If there is anything funny about it, then it must be for people who tell jokes to appear funny and have a sense of 'humor' - nothing to do with humour.It might help, I suppose, if you've some sort of notion that 'souls' could be real - I was expecting that it would be exposed as a silly medical/hey-wow/rip-off scam to make people think that they'd got souls. Apparently, though, this silly idea was supposed to be taken seriously.Avoid. This is compared to the 'Being John Malkovich' film - it is equally deliberate, trivial and boring - but somewhat less annoying.

After seeing how "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" use their sci-fi premises to enhance and extract romantic or existential story-lines, I found "Cold Souls" to be lacking in dramatic consequence and over-flowing in technicalities surrounding it's particular sci-fi premise.In this film the actor Paul Giamatti plays the actor Paul Giamatti, who decides to have his soul stored away for two weeks, while he works on a difficult theater role. When his soul is stolen from the soul storage company, he ventures out to find it, thereby meeting a Russian woman, Nina (Dina Korzun), who works as a soul transporter.This plot results in bizarrely funny scenes, for example when Paul accidentally drops his soul on the floor, and the manager crawls around nervously to search the carpet for it as if he were looking for, while afraid to step on, a contact lense.The film also contains many suggestions as to the consequences of separating yourself from your soul. However, the film is inconsistent in these suggestions - do you have feelings or not, when you are without a soul? Do you have a conscience or not?After having spent many scenes throughout the first half movie on Paul's rehearsals in the theater, director Sophie Barthes leaves this theme altogether for the second half.Whereas the two above-mentioned movies keep the technicalities of their premise in the background, this movie spends many lines explaining how souls leave residue etc., without adding to the story.I was entertained by this movie and it inspired a somewhat soul-searching conversation with my co-viewer. I found Giamatti's performance pleasant and was quite fascinated by Dina Korzun's quiet, almost cool humbleness as Nina. But when it came to the story's personal and existential development, I was left with too many blanks.