Nonureva Really Surprised!

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

fedor8 CC&IS starts off well, but soon after the good beginning it becomes apparent that the only reason this was made was to show two people shagging. Some daily soaps and slightly more ambitious porn flicks have just as much depth.To make things worse, it is quite likely that there never was an affair between the two. Coco Chanel was a notorious liar, sort of like a female Baron Munchausen, and a life-long drug-addict. She had fabricated large chunks of her own past in order to hide her humble origins, and was otherwise caught lying on numerous occasions. Hence the claims she listed to her biographer – after decades of being a lying junkie - that she had a bit of the ol' in-out with Igor cannot be taken too seriously. It's not even certain whether she'd dreamed it all up as a result of her morphine/cocaine-induced confusion or whether she made it up just to attract attention to herself; either way, the events in CC&IS have a whiff of bull's dung about them. Stravinsky certainly never confirmed these allegations, and the people around him deny everything (which doesn't serve as concrete proof, naturally, but doesn't exactly help in ing the existence of a hot Russo-French Winter fling). In short, there is no evidence of this alleged affair at all.Even more false was the portrayal of Stravinsky. He was said to have been a friendly, courteous chap; not at all the gloomy, silent, morose, anti-social, almost-autistic quasi-misfit as Mikkelsen plays him. While it is hinted here and there what a bitch Coco was, CC&IS doesn't even scratch the surface that lies above the unscratched surface of her bitchiness, opportunism, and sheer evil. This was certainly not a woman to be anybody's role-model, not even Sean Penn's. Though perhaps Oprah might have enjoyed her (im)moral com a tad.Considering how interesting both of their biographies are, I find it stupefying that somebody would develop a script centered around a tiny speck of time (less than a year) in their very long, eventful lives. Stravinsky: married his first cousin, wrote some amazing music, was forced to leave Russia, opposed Lenin's and Stalin's regimes, was a monarchist who hated communism, and even met Mussolini on one occasion declaring himself a Fascist to him. Coco: a lower-class bastard partly brought up in a monastery, an aspiring singer who became a starlet, then a harlot, rose to business glory with the aid of her wealthy male lovers, had been a morphine addict for much of her life, threw cocaine parties, was a spy for the Nazis during the French occupation in the 40s, had a Nazi officer as a lover during that time, financed/aided a former Nuremberg war-crimes SS psycho after he'd been released from jail in 1951, and was strongly anti-Semitic. Furthermore, she helped fund a foreigner-loathing Far Right French publication in the 30s – and then even funded a Far Left publication right after the owner of the Far Right one died. THAT'S how insane, immoral and confused she was. All these things offer much more interest than two actors f**king in a black&white room.But why wonder. The vast majority of movies these days are geared toward women and teens. Who amongst those sheep would want to see a true biography of Stravinsky? We can soon expect an Oscar-winning Jay-Z biopic, but forget Stravinsky.The main casting isn't great. Mouglalis has an uncomfortable, mega-bass deep voice that would shame Saruman or any alpha-male Orc in his service. She has no breasts either, as flat as 15th-century Earth. What she lacks in effeminate tones and chestiness she "makes up for" – unfortunately – in sheer height. She manages to tower over most of the male cast, which makes her look even worse. She must be about a head taller than the real Coconut. Casting square-jawed, tough-looking Mikkelsen to play a skinny, very ugly classical composer isn't exactly the height of realism, but at least female viewers could benefit from it, rather than have to watch a more-or-less attractive woman have sex with a narrow-faced nerd. I could see Mikkelsen as Conan the Barbarian, but as Igor the Stravinsky his credibility is stretched.All in all, you're much better served going to Wikipedia or YouTube. This isn't a biography.

Syl The actress who played Coco Chanel in this film is much different than the Coco Chanel film. Of course, all actresses including Anna Mag here offer something to the complex legend and fashion pioneering icon Coco Chanel. By 1913, she's successful and independent. By 1920, she's alone and lonely after the loss of Boyd Capel which I wished that they explained better in the film. He died in a car accident on his way back to her. They had a torrid love affair. Anyway, Coco is enchanted by Igor Stravinsky, a Russian musical genius, who is living in a hotel with his wife and family after the Russian revolution. She sees a kindred spirit in him as an artist herself. Her Coco is lot less affectionate than one might imagine. She's as much a mystery as Igor is to us. Both are artistic geniuses with hers in fashion and his in music. She offers her country home to help Igor and his family back on his feet. At first, she had noble intentions of helping another artist but the two get swept up in the affair. Maybe Igor feels obligated towards Coco. This film may have been more realistic. Igor is played Mik Mikaalsen. Both actor and actress who play the title roles are unfamiliar to me. I enjoyed watching the making of it to understand it. It's a dark film at times maybe too realistic as well.

Crveni Krst I am not particularly acknowledged with either Coco Chanel's or Igor Stravinsky's lives and careers, and frankly, I never bothered to investigate them in detail. That is until I saw this excellent motion picture...What fascinated me from the first 'till the last frame was the whole way "Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky" was filmed. The frame is absolutely perfect, and it's not hard to realize that this movie was made by an educated professional who knows his camera well. Each scene, each cut and setting is right, and united together with an emotional story and very good acting this becomes film a lasting experience in the eye of the beholder. I honestly don't know whether the story is based on true facts or fiction, yet the script is written well enough to be truly convincing. Good job!Beside the technical brilliance, there's yet another thing which made me love this motion picture - The surrounding of the filming location was a jewel in a crown, maybe even the shiniest one. I particularly like the interior decoration of Art Deco, and "Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky" shows the finest example.In short - this film is a solid example of how movie making can still be treated as art, despite this modern cinematic world of one liners and CGI. 10 points well earned.

Bob Taylor Anna Mouglalis is very thin, Mads Mikkelsen has wonderful cheekbones and they do not convince me that they are playing Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky respectively. The other actors, with the exception of Grigori Manukov as Diaghilev, left no impression on me at all. Surely Chanel had more ion, more anger in her than we see in Mouglalis; surely Stravinsky made more attempts to assert himself with the domineering Chanel than Mikkelsen does here.I was left with a great regret that the great masters of cinema have gone, the directors that were able to fashion material like this into art: Visconti, Losey, Ophuls.