lavatch The time is 1964. The place is Paris. The specific locale is an art studio at 46 Rue Hippolyte Maindron. This is dowdy living and working environment of the Giacometti brothers, Diego and Alberto.The film focuses on the craft of Alberto Giacometti, as he enlists the homosexual author James Lord to sit for a portrait. The film is intended as a kind of love letter to Giacometti, as told by Lord thinking back on his experience sitting for the great Swiss artist.Geoffrey Rush gives another one of his quirky performances as the eccentric artist. Rush's portrait is that of an artist plagued by self-doubts in his own abilities and of a human being that is callous to those around him. His insecurity and insensitivity leads to a frustrating pattern of stopping and starting of the portrait of Lord. The frustration extends from the sitter James Lord to the audience attempting to make it to the end of this film.One of the flaws of the film is that the mundane idea of sitting for an artist was not made interesting. In "The Girl With the Pearl Earring," the relationship of Vermeer and the young woman who was his sitter was carefully detailed, which made the film intriguing. By contrast, "Final Portrait" was static without a clear motivation for Lord to keep coming back for the unpleasant sittings.There is an interesting moment in the film when Giacometti stops work on the Lord portrait to work on another painting of the prostitute Caroline. But when we see the portrait of Caroline, it looks exactly like that of the painting of Lord! The filmmakers failed to capture the artistic process where an artist of Giacometti's stature would have sought more completely to capture the soul of the sitter, leading to differences in the approaches to the two portraits.The shabby working conditions in the filthy studio and the erratic lifestyle of Giacometti made the film an uninspiring experience. Instead of seeking to capture the essence of the creative process of an artist, the final portrait of Alberto Giacometti was rather pathetic.

MikeC19 I wanted to see this movie because I like Geoffrey Rush and Tony Shalhoub. I'd never seen a movie directed by Stanley Tucci, either, so that interested me. I took myself to see this, and expected a semi-art house flick. This was... OK, in my opinion. Here's why:The Good: The acting is good, which means the directing was good. Well acted and directed in my opinion.The Bad: There's a bit more than the good, unfortunately. The scenes get a little repetitive after a while, there's a dark color tone to the film that takes a little while to get used to, and I don't feel like you really have a reason to care about the characters. You get left in the dark, just kind of wondering what's taking so long for this man to finish the portrait. He's all over the place. Sometimes studying his drawing, sometimes carousing his mistress, sometimes cursing up a storm. It's an odd situation, watching this film. I didn't dislike it, as some of the other patrons in my theater did, but I don't see a reason to revisit it. So... I'll give it 5/10.

alvesmarceloalves-73751 An interesting portrait about the painter Giacometti at the end of his life, when he painted his last painting before he died. It is curious to see their crises, their insecurities and dissatisfactions in the act of creating. And Geoffrey Rush is very well in the role of the painter while creating an interesting relationship with the character of Armie Hammer.

zif ofoz A simple well written and perfectly acted story of an artist and his need to create and make that creation perfect to his liking.Set in the early 1960's the feel and charm of this film is quiet and unrushed to show a time when daily life wasn't as complex and full of the communication distractions we are saddled with today.This story isn't so much about the artist as it is about the artist nearing his final days and facing his needs.Loved it !