subjective, partial, the life behind his work of a great artist. seductive for the performance of Anthony Hopkins, important for define the sins of one of the significant names of the art from the XX century. but far to be a docudrama. only a slice from a long and not comfortable life. the film remains remarkable for acting and for the structure of story. for the trip in a dark zone and for the science of Anthony Hopkins to be Picasso in each detail. and this is the basic virtue of this film. to recreate a world. impressive, ambiguous, charming in a way. a portrait. profound subjective.that is all .

From the title, you would think that this was a story of terrible abuse and torture. In reality, the heroine has a pretty nice life with Picasso. No real abuse - the dude could be a pain, selfish, and insensitive, but who isn't? Picasso was kind to his other 'families,' and sure, he kept other women around, but if I was Picasso, I would too. If my wife didn't like it, she could just leave. I'm Picasso, I can do whatever I want. The movie was well acted but the story was boring. I kept waiting for something interesting to happen but it didn't. It was well filmed, locations were okay. There should have been more nudity because I'm sure the real Picasso had a studio full of lovely naked girls. That would have made the movie more interesting.

The movie is about Francoise Gilot, not about Picasso. It is not intended to tell Picasso's story. Picasso was brilliant, spectacular, the living center of the world of art and a sexual magnet. Women wanted him and, king that he was, Picasso viewed their adoration as no more than his due. Francoise Gilot, a talented painter in her own right - but no Picasso - lives for ten years a life which for her is absolutely worth the pain. And when the pain is so grave that she will surely be overwhelmed, she stands up and leaves. The pain doesn't go away instantly, but it does go away, in time. In one memorable scene, Gilot, at home with the baby, questions Picasso's absences, his obvious womanizing. He tells her in no uncertain terms that he will do as he chooses, that his life outside their home is none of her business. She has no right to question him. He doesn't say, "Take it or leave it," but that is the unmistakable message. She takes it, for a few more years, and another child. It would be interesting to know whether Gilot, who was born in 1921 and is apparently still with us, harbors regret. I cannot imagine that she does. Of course she would have enjoyed that ten years better if Picasso had been able to love, in some recognizable way. But would she trade that life for one less magnificent? For one that would not be a good movie? Hardly.The acting is of course perfect. Anthony Hopkins becomes the man Picasso. Natascha McElhone, Julianne Moore and Susanna Harker tell us the truth. Well paced, finely directed, this movie tells a riveting story. It is very, very good.It is perhaps worthy of note that many of the negative reviews of this movie are written by men. Picasso was not just difficult; he was a Difficult Man.

Anthony Hopkins is a very gifted actor,nobody can deny,but ,he was beginning to do any job going:playing Hannibal,Nixon and Picasso,it's much ,too much !Besides,James Ivory 's majestic talent ("Howards end" "remains of the day" "A room with the view" "Maurice") had inexorably waned."Jefferson in Paris" was already unsatisfying,smug and overblown.Still,it was entertaining."Surviving Picasso' is not.Only five minutes -let's be generous- are given over to the process of creation.The essential revolves around Picasso's relationship with women;this is neither rewarding nor entertaining,being trite,hollow and devoid of emotion , violence or/and tenderness.Word to the wise:people interested in Picasso's art -which is more interesting than his private life!who cares?- should try to see Henri-Georges Clouzot 's "le mystère Picasso" (1956):Unlike Ivory,Clouzot films the REAL Picasso while he is creating.He paints on a sheet of glass and we can follow every lick of paint.