This movie gets a rating of a 3 by me because of Ian McKellen. His acting and his character are superior to everyone else in this film. I did not like the acting of Ms. Unger nor Ms. Crane. It seems as though they were sleepwalking. Also, the movie's score was incredibly annoying and downright intrusive. This is how the score was: 4 to 7 notes on the piano, 3 to 11 notes on the cello, repeat and repeat and repeat. Do you get the picture? I cannot tell you how many times I had to mute the sound on my player because I could not take any more of this mind bending tedious music. Also, I did not like how the director set up the flashback sequences. I noticed that on the DVD special features section he felt it was really creative. However, I felt that it just gave Mr McKellen more screen time. Also, it was equally not compelling to cast the mother and daughter in other roles for the flashback sequences. I was so confused and exasperated with this director. The other reason I am giving this movie a 3 is because it was wonderful to see Vancouver and British Columbia for all its beauty. Well, if you want to watch this film and you're sensitive to music, I would suggest you do the same that I did. Simply put, press mute when you see a lot of sequences where there's no talking because you can bet your bottom dollar that horrendous score is going to be creeping into your ears.

I don't often have the chance to see a good movie like this one. Beautiful image, excellent music, great acting ( from the always talented McKellen and the good Deborah ); but most of all, a great movie with a "Les fraises sauvages" flashback style, which is an excellent way to "renew" this old and easy flashback method. Takes place in beautiful places honored by Carl Bessai's expert lighting and photographic style. The story, also, is very good, a story of regrets about the past that cannot be changed. You have to see this movie if you love great images, great acting talent ( what is this guy doing in x-men anyway ?? --> I understand, lots of money... i'd do the same... ), and good moments.11/10 !

Wonderful performances by all actors involved, Ian McKellen especially gives a typically intelligent and nuanced rendering. The plot is solid, but the main flaws lie in the tedious direction, cinematography and editing. Flashbacks are overused and signalled with horrendous transparency. The direction is terribly heavy-handed, which is unfortunate; plot-lines that are already capable of arousing viewer sympathy are then dwelled upon with even less subtlety. The ponderous soundtrack would be palatable under normal circumstances, but rapidly becomes irritating when prefaced by a "have you ever...?" question and combined with slow-motion, sepia effects. There is also a problem with the audio, where inconsistent mixing/mastering have allowed too many low-mids in the mix about half of the time, making some of the dialogue indistinct.Worth watching if you appreciate Ian McKellen's work, but expect to lose interest by the end.

Unlike many movies discussing family, Emile focuses on the relationship among brothers, among uncle and nieces. Sometimes, it is a lot of so-called obligations between father/mother and son/daughter. The bond is too strong to escape from it. It is more romantic, as holiday hobby is more romantic than weekday job. There are a lot of space for one's free will, a man doesn't have to scarify just because he is someone else's whoever.It is why I can only partially agree with the footnote of the movie `it is a movie about human being rather than human doing.' He has choice, what he has done of course decides what he is. I just grasp something from existentialism.Compare to the director's previous work, Lola, the movie with a younger woman as leading character, I can identify myself with the characters in Emile more. People in Emile suffer more struggles inside their hearts. Lola does experiences many exciting and fantastic, and she does suffer something. However, I can't find any identity in her `innocent' expression.It is an interesting thing when the movie reminds me of another Ian McKellen's great acting, Gods and Monsters. Maybe it is because of the way of describing, putting now and then, reality and imagination together in the same picture. (It made me think that `Ian McKellen's acting is similar to his previous one' at first. Actually, Emile and James Whale are built much different.) Director Carl Bessai spent much effort to build up such the atmosphere of what happens in an old man's mind, much more than Bill Condon did, in my `humble' opinion, a little too much. Carl Bessai chose still rather than action. It seems to express the idea `human being rather than human doing'. It is also a trade off a director must take.In a picture, a motion picture, the present and the past are seamlessly married, but not in a logic. The screenplay doesn't give a good and strong reason to release the ice wall between Emile and his niece, Nadia. A strong ending doesn't mean exciting action or whatever else. Of course, you can choose a tranquil way, but the most tranquility has huge surges beneath.Ian McKellen's acting is so convincing, Emile seems a part of himself. (Maybe he would protest that there is no a single character can present himself.) It is rare that a veteran actor can bring a sense of innocent. And Deborah Unger surprises me much. Her coldness toward Ian is the most incredible, because it is also rare that a young actress can build up such tense to someone much older than herself, rather than go in the same direction. Tygh Runyan did not act much in the movie, but he has a sensitive looking.