Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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).

SnoopyStyle It's 1943 Paris. Pablo Picasso (Anthony Hopkins) is selling paintings to the Nazis and being the famed artist. Françoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone) meets him as an admirer and becomes his long-time mistress. It's turbulent affair and she would have two kids with him. Her grandmother (Joan Plowright) warns her. The other women in his life includes his bitter wife Olga, Dora Maar (Julianne Moore), and Marie-Thérèse who has a daughter with him.This is the wrong subject for Merchant Ivory. Their safe harbor is mannered people trying to restrain their inner turmoil. Picasso's turmoil is not interior. It is exterior. This movie needs flamboyance. Picasso is excessive in every ways. This contrast completely with the reserved nature of a Merchant Ivory movies. Hopkins has the acting power but the movie struggles to harness that power.

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.