Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

rooprect Pay no attention to the sensational marketing on the back of the DVD declaring this to be a "kooky" "romantic comedy" "funnier than Police Academy 17!" (well OK, I made up that last one) I was expecting some big belly laughs, and after the first half hour without even cracking a smile, I started to feel disappointed. But that's when I realized that this is not really a comedy and it shouldn't be approached as such. True, there are some bizarre characters and weird situations like a guy getting accused of infidelity because he happens to be zipping up his fly at an inopportune moment (after taking a pee), but comedy is not the heart of this film; poetry is. The vibe the director achieved here reminds me of Bertolucci's "Stealing Beauty", Stillman's "Barcelona" or maybe the more recent "L'auberge espagnole" but with older characters. It's a very European story--and by that I mean the characters are extremely diverse and cosmopolitan, and the scenery plays a key role--about a bunch of people just being normal, or as normal as they can be under the circumstances.There aren't a lot of wild plot twists, no real action, and no melodramatic romances like you might expect from Hollywood. As best as I can describe it, this is a movie about real life set in an unreal setting (a dreamy island off the coast of Spain).The story is about a dead composer and how his legacy impacts the people who adored him. Here is where, I believe, we get the title of the film "Four Last Songs". In real life, composer Richard Strauss wrote 4 songs (Spring, September, Sleep, Sunset) in his last year before he died, and these songs prophetically consider the subject of death, yet not with dread & fear but with calm & serenity. The movie has nothing about Strauss but instead invents a fictional composer whose works are to be performed in a tribute concert. The "Four Last Songs" in the movie could relate to the 4 subplots: a young woman discovering her life (Spring), a mature couple dealing with their insecurities (September), a man who seems to be courting death (Sleep) and an unfinished romance left in the wake of the composer's passing (Sunset). The music seems to unify these 4 subplots into a cohesive tale, and that's how we get "Four Last Songs".This is of course, just my personal interpretation. But the point that I'm trying to make is that this is a film that can be approached at different levels, and its poetic nature lends itself to many possible meanings. In that sense, it ain't no hilarious romantic comedy. If, right from the get-go, you realize that it's a very symbolic & artistic story I think you'll enjoy it so much more.

Mystral A glorious evening. The film was televised very late (gone midnight our time) - and had been somewhat slated by the Radio Times critic ("...let down by dreary script"). I was fascinated by the title but from the synopsis could not make out what on earth the Four Last Songs had to do with the film, and was it 'THE' Four Last Songs? but had forgotten to check when it was to be televised. Was asleep in front of the TV, woke up, 'time for bed' then suddenly, up came the titles. OK. Let's watch for a few mins. WOW. Very glad that I did so. Sat back and enjoyed the best TV in a very long time - and as for the sound track - glorious. The voice of Sylvia Sass echoing in my mind ever since last night. Now to purchase the CD.So glad that so many people have enjoyed this film - and sorry for the few who didn't. I was intriegued by the dialogue and how it was woven, seamlessly, without art. The acting was excellent, costuming superb - and as for the location. Full marks. I must get the DVD of this film as it is one of the very, very few films that I could watch a second or even a third time.Addendum: spent a leisurely morning checking out Sylvia Sass. Now have a (long) checklist of CD titles to order up (thanks to the poster who posted the name of the soloist.)Mystral (France)

JPMDatIMDB Disclaimer: I know most of the people on whom the characters are (loosely) based, and the area of the production (the village of Deia on the island of Mallorca), and the house in which it's set. I even happened to meet the director as they were getting ready to shoot the film, so I should have a natural tendency to praise this piece.On the flip side, I've been a writer and, as a young pup, a movie theater manager, so I see a lot of film and video, which perhaps makes me a bit more, um, particular about film making.The good stuff: The scenery is glorious, with or without the "homesick factor." The opening shot of the little church atop the mountain, with the several-hundred-year-old terraces of olives and fruit below, makes you want to call Iberia and book the next flight to Spain. The restaurant at the Cala, where you first see Miranda and Larry playing music together, is beautiful (great food, by the way) but looks more glamorous than in real life.The idea of bringing unheard classical music out of the past into modern ears is a good premise, with plenty of subplots going on to keep things interesting, while the idea of my sister popping up in the middle of all these other complications just adds another layer to the stack of amusing plot devices.On the flip side: I felt that the story didn't flow quite as well as I'd expected, perhaps because the dialog didn't strike me as quite sharp enough. It seems like the actors weren't quite sure where to go or what to say at times, so some of the story got a little lost. (I learned later they were instructed to ad lib most of their lines.)Nonetheless, I'd give it good marks for a light comedy, set in an idyllic location, with interesting characters, and a different premise from the usual "two strangers meet and fall in love, with laughs for all" that appears to mark the genre these days.

birck This film was a shot in the dark. I figured that with a cast like that (Tucci, Ifans, Malone et al.), how could it go wrong? Well, I'm not obsessive enough-or astute enough-to pick out where the problem lies, but after 45 minutes of the story, I bailed. I wasn't interested enough to care what happened to the characters, even to Rhys Ifans, who definitely had the best lines. The synopses you can read in other comments are accurate, but by the halfway point the story still hadn't picked up enough momentum to hint at an interesting outcome. There was one point that bothered me about the proceedings, too: early in the preparations for the concert the dead composer's grand piano is delivered by helicopter to the stage of a natural-i.e., uncovered- amphitheater halfway up a mountain. The story continues, then, a few days later, there is a horrendous thunderstorm that blows in, serves some plot points, then moves on. No mention is made of the priceless Steinway in the open amphitheater. Perhaps there is some use made of the ruined piano later, after the point at which I stopped watching, but nobody even thinks about it during the storm? That struck me as, at best unrealistic, at worst a lapse of the kind I could expect more of in the film. Why bother?