How is this misconceived. Let me count the ways. First it casts Romain Duris as a romantic leading man; this is a guy whose ideal role is holding Vincent Cassell's coat as he beats up a nun. Second it pairs Duris romantically with Audrey Tautao despite previous similar pairings showing that this is a non-starter. Third it attempts to make a fantasy cum love story that is never going to work. Fourth they allowed it to get beyond the 'say, fellas, what if we signed Audrey Taautoa and Romaine Duris, shoved them into a surreal world and see what happens' stage and actually shot this bad joke. It will, of course, have its supporters, people, after all have been known to shell out good money to watch Police Academy, Carry On, Brain-dead and others of that ilk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

By now, you pretty much know what you're getting into when you watch a Michel Gondry film. Insanely innovative visuals and whimsical situations with really emotional moments, right?Well, that works when it's service of a story. But here, in MOOD INDIGO, his style has gone off the rails. It's Gondry-ness for Gondry-ness sake. I had a hard time following the narrative because it was wall-to-wall eye candy with no rhyme or reason or purpose for existing. That's cute when you're an 11 year old who wants to watch something stylish on the surface because you think "it's edgy." But for us adults who actually want to get invested in a movie, in the lives of the characters, it's a pain in the ass.Let's see-- there's a man in a mouse suit who everyone pretends is a real mouse, there's a claymation doorbell that's constantly getting squashed like a bug, there's a cooking show host that talks to people and hands them food through the TV. But is there a story? HELL NO.It's only when the movie makes a pretty drastic changeover in style and mood that it actually tells a story and begins to resemble something more along the lines of Eternal Sunshine. But by the time it gets going, it's too late. And I had stopped caring.

After making 'Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind', a film that had heart, creativity, was emotionally engaging as well as occasionally funny, Michel Gondry has been getting steadily worse over the years. 'The Green Hornet' was further proof in my opinion that Gondry is a one film wonder and is better suited to music videos. I would like to think this film would prove me wrong, but it didn't. It just irritated me with it's quirky and overly random ideas and a playfully twee tone which I have grown to hate.Romain Duris stars as the wealthy bachelor Colin who lives in a converted train where pretty much anything turns into an animation. He has a live in lawyer who is also a chef named Nicolas (Omar Sy). He also has a friend named Chick (Gad Elmaleh) who has an unhealthy obsession with an existential philosopher Jean Sol Partre (obviously a play on the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre). In his house, he has a door bell that comes to life when someone rings and it crawls around the room until someone steps on it. Also, people's legs go all noodley when they dance, Colin's shoes run away from him, there is a piano that makes cocktails and many more. There is not a single scene that goes by without multiple visual quirks or whacky, random events which just happen for no reason. It is as if Gondry made an endless list of any daft idea he can think of and decided to cram every single one of them into this film to annoy his audience into boredom. It is very tiresome after the first 20 minutes, and most of them are not funny. Why some members of the audience were laughing at every little thing that happens really escapes me. All these ideas did not add much to the characters or the story much which for me starved the film of any emotion when Colin meets Chloe (Audrey Tautau), falls in love and then goes on a date in what looks like a space ship attached to a crane. I found all the falling in love parts just mainly annoying and airy fairy. Too much twee makes John want to smash the screen into silence, just like Colin wants to smash a radio into silence when he hears a cheesy power ballad.Later in the film, it does take a progressively darker tone as Chloe accidentally inhales a water lily which starts to grow in her lung. When things go all sad and Colin has to work extremely random jobs to fund Chloe's recovery, I did not feel much in the way of emotion, I just felt mainly annoyance that these daft ideas were still happening in rapid fire pace. When the film ends, I just felt exhausted. That was enough quirkiness for me for one day (Although because of my occupation, I had to sit through this 3 times). Also I was surprised by the downer ending. As the relationship gets more difficult between Colin and Chloe as well as everyone else in the film, the hues become gradually more pallid until the final scenes where they are black and white. Some of the scenes looked very good and colourful, but for me, more suited to a music video.I feel the film was trying to say something more deeper and meaningful. Was it some kind of dream like allegorical tale of life. It may be vague, but it was all I can come up with as I was so distracted by all the stupid stuff. Sure a lot of hard work has gone into making all the animation and effects happen on screen, but it doesn't mean I have to like it! It does not give me great pleasure to say that this is in my opinion yet another mis-step from Gondry. I don't think he will make another great film on par with Eternal Sunshine. I'm sure he will still attract a devoted legion of fans who are into the quirky and the twee, but I shall not make much of an effort in future.

I love strange movies, but apart from Eternal Sunshine, Gondry has been more miss than hit for me. And this is probably the biggest miss for me. The effects in this started out as distracting. Even jarring. "HEY LOOK AT ANOTHER OF THESE WONDERFULLY QUIRKY ANIMATIONS! AREN'T YOU FEELING THE QUIRKY, HAPPY, WONDERFULLNESS YET? HEY, HEY! LOOK AT IT! FEEL HAPPY AND QUIRKY GODDAMMIT!!! And before the ten minute mark, they became tedious. For almost an hour I sat there wondering why I was supposed to feel anything for these shallow two-dimensional characters. Heck. There wasn't even any particular setbacks for anyone until Chloe started to faint. And by that time I was way beyond even caring. Well. I should probably add that the version we showed at our local art-house-cinema was the 94 minute version. Maybe the 124 min cut doesn't feel nearly as slapped haphazardly together. Or maybe they cut out 30 min of tedium. I don't know. All I do know is that I barely made it through this one and my interest isn't exactly piqued for a longer sit. Again, I love movies with strange elements. Making my brain go WTF did someone put in my soft-drink? But for me there needs to be some semblance of timing and storytelling momentum. Not just, Hey I know, let's have five more scenes of them fighting the stop-motion doorbell spider while smiling happy and quirky faces without it adding anything of value to the plot. Why? Because it's quirky! Do we need another reason? You know. During watching this film I realized I just don't care for "quirky". It does absolutely nothing for me. Adds nothing and becomes a tedious chore to sit through yet another HAPPY HAPPY STRANGE AND Wonderful SET-PIECE. FEEL THE HAPPY GODDAMMIT! No. I do not feel the happy. I instead feel like bitter old fart for not enjoying what is so clearly supposed to be a wonderful moment. And any movie that makes me feel like a bitter old fart gets a low rating from me... Wow... starting out I didn't realize I could muster up this much of emotion to describe my experience. I should probably stop now. Yes... just stop. If you love "quirky" and Tatou. Then you'll probably love this. Because there's just a sh**-ton of that. If you don't. Get ready for tedium.