Vincent & Theo

1990 "An obsessive vision. A desperate dream. A world that didn't understand… And a brother that did."
6.9| 2h18m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 02 December 1990 Released
Producted By: Hemdale Film Corporation
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

The tragic story of Vincent van Gogh broadened by focusing as well on his brother Theodore, who helped support Vincent. Based on the letters written between the two.

Genre

Drama

Watch Online

Vincent & Theo (1990) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Robert Altman

Production Companies

Hemdale Film Corporation

Vincent & Theo Videos and Images

Vincent & Theo Audience Reviews

Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!
Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall
GazerRise Fantastic!
Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%
runamokprods A woefully overlooked film, this is one of my very favorite by Altman. Amazing acting by Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, and the whole film is tremendously moving.For me, Altman achieves a sort of dream state even more interesting than in the more critically acclaimed '3 Women'. He manages to make you feel the whole story as completely real, as if you were there in history, and yet, it has a fractured, dreamlike quality, with moments left unexplained and mysterious, but always making emotional sense.I don't know any film that better captures the pain of being an artist, or the pain of being unable to save someone you love. Also, the whole film looks gloriously like a painting.There is a longer version, originally made for European TV, but I actually think the rhythms are better in the US theatrical cut. The Euro version mostly adds tons of exposition that takes away from the mysterious, subjective tone that makes this work so well -- at least for me.
MartinHafer The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object."Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.
philfromno Altman tells the oft-told story of Vincent Van Gogh and the much less told story of his art dealer brother. The story deftly avoids tortured artist cliches and builds both characters as complex, contradictory individuals. The acting is beyond excellent. Tim Roth shows considerable restraint as Van Gogh, a character that many actors would have chosen to overact. And Rhys's Theo calm surface subtly betrays his inner torment. Altman's camera is a star here as well, and few directors today understand the principle of movement as well as he does. The photography ranges from good to excellent, and the whole films feels like a glimpse into Vincent's world. Like most of Altman's better films, it's character rather than plot driven, so some will certainly say that it's 'boring'. If you are prone to say things like this, it's probably not for you, but anyone who is a fan of Altman's earlier films will be pleased.
talporat Long time I searched for this movie, and when I fainly found it I was very enthusiastic to see it. I have a great connection with Vincent Van Gogh, and I would like to see every movie that was made about him, ever. Before I saw "Vincent and Theo" I saw "Lust for life", another movie about Vincent, with Kirk Douglas. and I have to say it's very different. "Vincent and Theo" Focus on the relationship between Vincent and his brother. And it also shows Vincent's life in a very realistic and different film I saw about him. Last thing-the actors are incredible! Especially Tim Roth. he's perfect as Vincent.