VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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

rbrb Two hours long; dull and tedious, and what a shame.Picasso one of the most famous painters of all time yet this movie concentrates on him as an egotist, womanizer and bore.It is mainly about his later life and one tedious affair after another as well as the portrayal of him as totally selfish, whether true or not.This is someone whose paintings can and do sell for 50 or 100 million US dollars, and like or loath, he was a Genius.But no where in the picture does it properly: i) Show us the Secret of his Genius;or,ii) Illustrate fully or sufficiently the artistry of his genius.If one is going to make a movie about an Icon, give us someinspiration please....3/10

OsbourneRuddock I found this a highly disappointing film in that it seems to focus almost entirely on the misogynistic side of Picasso's personality, and his selfish insensitivity towards others. While these aspects of Picasso no doubt existed (his treatment of his children was appalling) the film fails to portray a rounded depiction of the man or what drove him. This very one-dimensional and oblique angled view is no doubt due to the fact that the film is based on the memories of his disillusioned wife, and I am reminded of the book written by Deborah Curtis about her husband the singer Ian Curtis, in which she whines on about the domestic reality of their relationship but offers virtually no insight into his art - which was surely the most interesting thing about him. The problem is that the relationships which these women have with their husbands is based on love and its commitments, and has nothing to do with their art or creativity. The world is full of brutal and misogynistic people, but what makes Picasso interesting is what he created. To make a film about an artist which ignores the inner imagination, psychology, and creative aspect of that person is pointless and uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins offers a fairly convincing performance, but this just isn't enough. For an artist biopic with more depth and substance I recommend Love Is The Devil (about painter Francis Bacon).

Peter Hayes When you have Antony Hopkins in the lead of a movie you maybe expect too much - especially as he looks so much like the real Picasso on the film poster. Sadly the promise is not fulfilled as we learn nothing; and worse the low budget limits where the camera can wander - or maybe too much was spent on getting lead Hopkins?The film is tied to a very minor version of his life story, and worse, the estate having pulled-down-the-shutters on the project - leaving us with only half completed sketches and cod paintings from which we are supposed to get the gist of the maestro.Although well enough done to give us an insight in to style and purpose we are getting short changed, like a Beatles bio-film where the actors don't sing real Lennon and McCartney numbers but pastiche versions.Yes the artist took art forward, but his work is more imagination than technique. He was a factory artist (his slapdash ten minute wonders litter the wall of many of the new rich) and don't tell me all his work was good or original- a lot of samey-samey abstract pictures of women.The central problem is that Hopkins is a lovely person and Picasso was not. While on-the-ball when he plays the strong, manipulating and selfish man (these are on-tap devices for a real stage actor), he weakens when trying to be nice or light-hearted. His "let's still be friends" is too soft and reasonable for a man whose whole life was dedicated to self pleasure and self gratification. I don't believe he was ever nice in that English gentleman sense, only in that car salesman way of being nice to get what they want. The kind that turns nasty when rebuked.Female lead McElhone (playing Francoise Gilot) hasn't a clue what to do with her lover/student/child bearer character. It is a role of long face pulling, but at least she has a lovely long face to do it with. She either doesn't believe in her character or refuses to play weak, which she must have been to put up with what we see here. More a groupie than a student. Or maybe - more accurately - one of these honouree servants that only the rich and famous can have. Talented as an artist? - couldn't tell you from watching this film!This product is actually not that bad, but it was a story that wanted everything going for it to have a sporting chance of success. Having a class A actor in the lead doesn't make up for the faults of budget and access to the artist's real work. A bland piece of work that might have dashed any chance to make a proper fist of the job for a generation or two.

dbdumonteil 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.