Reading this critique of the movie, I keep hearing her in my head. I'll have to go play the CD I had copied from an old LP, the one with "Milord" on it.

I heartily agree with Stephanie, and thank her for a clear-eyed view of this flawed film. Here in France, critics ignored the biggest problem, Dahan's self-conscious non-story-telling. In most reviews, the immense popularity of Piaf and the power of her life overwhelmed any serious consideration of this movie as a work of art.

It's still worth seeing, but Cotillard's performance with a different director and a different screenplay could have made a very great movie.

One comment: not sure that it was filmed in Paris... certainly the Belleville scenes were not filmed here (live there, would have noticed).

I have been a fan of Piaf's music since I was a teenager studying French and looked forward to this movie...up until I saw the trailer. All of the flaws Zacharek sees in the film are evidenced in the trailer. I was astounded that the producers could take such a fascinating life in such a fascinating place during such a fascinating period of history and make it look so dull, terribly arty and dull. Anyone who did not already know Piaf's life story would have no incentive to see this film from the trailer.

Thanks for the warning about the film.

Reading your review after I saw "Rose", I was very surprised by the slam. It is truly worth seeing this film. Any idiosyncs of direction are obliterted by the stunning performance. Channeling someone like Piaf is quite a trick and done to perfection. Possibly you could have been as kind to Piaf as you were to Nancy Drew.

Usually, I enthusiatically agree with your reviews Stephanie, but on this one, you dropped the ball on almost every point you make. For chrissakes, did we see the same film? I for one, am sick of biopics and their stupid three acts structure: discovery and triumph, addiction and decadence and then salvation and/or death. I know you liked Walk the Line,which befuddled me at the time but, how the hell is it better than La Vie en Rose? Are you using two different rulers to measure them?

La Vie en Rose triumphs where every other biopic as of late (W.T.L., the unsufferable Factory Girl, Ray) have failed. It distills and bottles the essence of Edith and her life, but most importantly, how her art was the only thing that prevented such a tiny, neurotic, pain-in-the-ass lady from collapsing under the weight of life. If to do this, the director uses non-linear storytelling, so be it. If it looks like he's trying to make art (oh no!) to achieve his purposes, well, so fucking be it. If some unimportant details or characters are not there... boo-hoo, big friggin' deal. Her fragility and soul, facing a tough world while shrouded by extraordinare talent is there to see in La Vie en Rose, and it's a beautiful thing. Thanks.

I will begin by stating that "La Vie en Rose", is a superb film. It is superior, in many respects, to the overwhelming majority of movies produced throughout the year and I would argue most years.

The performance of Marion Cotillard is one that I believe all younger actors should take note of. To watch her is to see an actor using their entire instrument. No critic seems to have a problem with Marion Cotillard. What they seem to have a problem with is Olivier Dahan's script and direction. Stephanie Zacharek is one of those critics.

A bone of contention is the chronological back and forth utilized to illustrate Edith Piaf's story. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this would be confusing or bothersome to anyone, much less a movie reviewer, who is arguably intellectually equipped to handle such a narrative tool. Anyone put off by this film would probably pour bleach in their eyes upon watching, "Pulp Fiction" or "Usual Suspects". Dahan actually gives you places and dates on the screen!

Miss Zacharek points out that Piaf's longtime friend, Monome, leaves the story for a bit, after a falling out, than reappears later, without any explanation. My eyeballs popped out of my head when I read that. Would she rather have Dahan, add ten minutes to the film explaining that they made up, remained friends; just like friends do in real life. Earlier in the film, Monome is taken away by the authorities at the behest of her mother but then reappears later. I applaud the fact that the director feels that he doesn't need to hold my hand and explain every last little thing. I exult in his respect for the audience's intelligence. They are close friends, I get it, next scene!

It is true that this film does not touch on Piaf's activities during World War II. That would be another film entirely. Edith Piaf was very involved, of course secretly, with the French Resistance. It was wise to leave it out of this picture. If you cannot devote yourself to the subject matter, you are providing a disservice and that diminishes the great hardships faced by those involved. That is indeed another film.

I must note the power of the sequence in which Edith Piaf learns of the death of her lover, Marcel Cerdan. I refuse to go into detail because I want people to see it; to feel it. I want people to see it's emotional power as it is pushed down the track by Dahan's technique. I saw it in a packed theatre and you could feel and hear a 100 people gasp and then hold their breath.

Is it not that possibility of shared human emotion that drives and conjoins artist and audience?

I feel that any reviewer that was left cold by this film has forgotten what it's like to watch a film as a clean slate and not as someone who has seen thousands of movies and has had to write about many of them. If a film has something to say, be more prepared to hear it than dismiss it.

Don't feel too bad Stephanie, Pauline Kael was completely wrong about "Last Tango in Paris".