I've Loved You So Long

Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: October 24, 2008

7.6	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 47 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

JMaleMar 16, 2009

Horrible. I thought this movie would never end.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BobTMay 2, 2009

What a completely implausible, unrealistic tale. Why would any one not admit the true motive for such an act - love based euthanasia unless they were totally pathologically masochistic and equally totally inconsiderate of their family's What a completely implausible, unrealistic tale. Why would any one not admit the true motive for such an act - love based euthanasia unless they were totally pathologically masochistic and equally totally inconsiderate of their family's feelings? Why wouldn't any one have arrived at the most obvious,and reasonable explanation? If you like a melodramatic weeper this film should float your boat. Of course Kristin is very easy on the eyes, even when morbid of visage as is mostly here .… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RyeCMar 11, 2009

A generally slow drama that never pays off. I was really surprised to see the praise for Kristin Scott Thomas. I found her performance to be that of a one trick pony. She's detached and uncomfortable with life the whole movie. With the A generally slow drama that never pays off. I was really surprised to see the praise for Kristin Scott Thomas. I found her performance to be that of a one trick pony. She's detached and uncomfortable with life the whole movie. With the exception of a couple scenes, she doesn't need to show much range. This movie wasn't a bad story it just didn't move me and that may be due to the two hour runtime. This really should have been a short film or at least under 80 minutes. Pass on this one unless you enjoy the feeling of watching paint dry while watching films.
… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Erik_ImsenJan 30, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A movie that turns out extremely disappointing when it fails delivering what it promised. My two main areas of complaints are the characters' total lack of realism and the final explanation -why was Scott Thomas in jail- that ultimately does not make any sort of sense and thus ruins the entire build-up, in other words, the entire film.

The characters are stereotypical breathing cliches. - Zylberstein who feels guilty for turning her back on her sister when incarcerated justifies her actions by her youth, stating that her parents ordered her to forget she ever had a sister. Which could have been believable if we did not learn later in the film that she was a teenager when her sister was sent to jail. An age at which you can hardly be brainwashed by your parents.
- Zylberstein's husband, portrayed by Serge Hazanavicius, is the sum of all possible cliches, so two dimensional he turns out flatter than a pancake. Sure the role was very poorly written, but with his over-the-top animosity towards Scott Thomas, Hazanavicius doesn't manage to save the day. It even gets to the point of being laughable when he accidentally dislocates his shoulder and M.D.-prior-to-be-incarcerated Scott Thomas snaps it back into place, thus enlightening him about Scott Thomas true nature and allowing their relationship to improve from now on.
- Scott Thomas' probation officer screams "loneliness" so hard to the screen that you almost expect him to beg for free hugs at a later scene. I suppose he was designed to be some sort of a pressure relief to Scott Thomas, and their regular meetings that quickly moved from his office to cafes are here to show us he is different from other probation officers. His endless speeches about the places he'd like to travel to are here to create a poetic note, and have Scott Thomas' mind travel with his, around a drink. But again the poor execution turns him into a joke, and their scenes into wasted film.

I won't go any further into characters, as I have stated what bothered me most, and shall move to the second part: the whole thing doesn't make sense.

We learn rather quickly that Scott Thomas went to jail for 15 years, which puts "murder" high up on the list of probable crimes committed, only to learn soon afterwards that she was convicted of murder on the person of her son.
It is by the end of the film that we actually get to know why, as her sister confronts her after she finds out: her son was sick with a terrible, horribly painful and incurable disease. The murdering of her son was actually an act of euthanasia.
And this is where I fell off my chair. Why didn't she say it? An explanation is given: she didn't care anymore. She was so devastated that she did not want to justify or explain her acts before a court of law.
Fair enough.
But what about her family? And even more to the point: did no one actually worked on the case? A kid who has been under intensive care for a rare and terrible disease is not something that goes unnoticed. Did it ever occurred to anyone to connect the dots? Through out the entire film, either people look at her with disgust or people from her past -such as her ex-husband- are mentioned to have turned their back in horror. While I'm willing to understand that people may strongly and even violently react to euthanasia, there is nonetheless a difference in between a psycho mother who killed her son and a medical doctor, with extensive knowledge of all the horrible phases her son has gone and will go through before a certain death, and who gives him some peace with euthanasia. To conclude, I would say the film is completely dishonest, because it makes characters act in the most implausible ways, solely to obfuscate the truth and thus protect the final twist: the kid was sick and the mother isn't a monster, just a loving mom who did what she thought was best for her son.
The characters don't make any sense. Scott Thomas and Zylberstein do a good job considering all of the above, but they are two only to be saved, as the rest of the cast is ranging from average to bad.
Technically the movie is good. Nice camera work and lighting, fine editing and the music choice was interesting.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews