My thoughts regarding Collette are conflicted to say the least. On one hand, the film is a well-acted, complex love story. On the other hand, it's a well-acted mess that doesn't know what it wants to say. I'll begin by covering the one element of the film I know I liked: the leads. Keira Knightly and Dominic West are a great onscreen couple. They both have human flaws, but the script also acknowledges the true affection between them. In addition to their romance, they also share a relationship as business partners, adding another layer of complexity to their relationship. Through the progression of this love story, I didn't hate one or idolize the other, which I admired on a screenwriting level. However, about halfway through the film, the dialogue and tone start to side with Collette more and more even though the previous scenes never indicated the story held this ethical position. I understand that her name is the title of the picture, but there are still biographical films that don't necessarily support the central figure's motives or actions. In the first hour or so, the film seemed to simply display Colette's life without assigning the roles of a good or bad guy. The story focused and kept the central dramatic elements in check. After this, Colette starts, I don't want to say "falling apart", rather biting off more than it can chew. New characters are introduced quite literally out of nowhere even though they play very important roles. Colette also starts pursuing a career in theatre for reasons that are never really explained. And her husband Willy (Dominic West) is suddenly made out to as the film's antagonist. I would not mind this dramatic shift if more time was dedicated to the relationship. But like I said, there are so many separate events unfolding in the last hour or so that it's impossible to make sense of it all. In fact, the end credits reveal even more important events took place later in her life, that I quite frankly would have liked to see. I think the film makers struggled deciding what approach to use while telling this story. At first, the film seemed purely subjective as it took a neutral stance and simply showed the events one after another. Perhaps the writers later decided they weren't comfortable with this approach and took a one-sided angle for the rest of the project. I don't prefer one point of view over the other, but I wish Colette would have committed to a single method of cinematic storytelling. I've though about this film a lot and have decided to give it a small recommendation. It is a well acted, well-directed, and well-shot picture from beginning to end, but there is a distracting perspective shift that audiences should be aware of.

source: Colette

Excellent in every respect, casting, use of color. Well done.

I had trouble getting into this biopic of the great French writer, covering her early years before she came into her own as a novelist. Directed by a Brit (Wash Westmoreland) its British casting and use of that old parallel world of a Europe where everyone is veddy British speaking with a British accent distanced me completely from a subject that quintessentially should have been made with French talent speaking French. "Colette" deals with the self-realization of a young woman, finally coming into her own after domination by her husband, a chauvinistic rake who deceives her with infidelities as well as stealing the credit (and profits) of her writing, and doesn't even apologize, claiming it's just the way men behave. Principal themes involve role-playing and domination/submission. Colette's husband has her play the school-girl role, one of *'s old standbys, and later when her character named Claudine becomes all the rage she even dresses up as Claudine to please him. One major criticism of Westmoreland is that he and his late collaborator Richard Glatzer, to whom "Colette" is dedicated, leave out the most interesting and salient facts about Colette's life in this movie, sort of a "Young Winston" Attenborough approach, or perhaps "Young Indiana Jones" of the Lucas production line. Lucas with his phenomenal "Star Wars" merchandising achievement is sort of the modern equivalent of Colette's first husband "Willy" (well-played here by a heavily made-up Dominic West), marketing the Claudine character with innumerable products ranging from bath soap to food stuffs. Knightley's full-range performance redeems the film, but is more surmounting obstacles put in her way by the filmmaker than creating a work of art.

Great acting, directing, script. Highly recommend!

I did not know anything about the real life writer Gabrielle Colette and the movie certainly didn't give me the impression that I have missed something. I guess this is one of those movie that are important for women who still feel suppressed (visit Pakistan or India or almost all of Africa someone may dare to propose) but all in all if I compare Colette with biopics about male writers or painters, the character of Gabrielle Colette (at least that one depicted in the movie) is some blunt and mediocre and boring woman living a boring and pampered life in a pretentious and boring "higher class" of people of those times, "rebelling" like a spoiled kid. Miss Potter with Renée Zellweger from 2006 is a far more interesting and entertaining movie - about a female artist.

From the trailer I thought this was going to be one of those English type dramas that I love so much. I like Keira Knightly generally and was looking forward to a good drama. Was I disappointed to find this is the story of a couple of people who were talented but rather seedy characters. What is talent without character? Nothing, imo. Had I known the storyline, I would have definitely passed this one up. It's a DVD rental if even that. Bottomline the trailer was misleading, therefore it's on me that I didn't look further into this story before going to the movies.

This movie is downright depressing. Keira Knightly was playing some other character, not as I always envisioned Colette from her novels, Cherie and The Last of Cherie, not to mention her stage play Gigi. Should have given this movie another title.

It's 1892 France. Struggling self-important writer Willy (Dominic West) woos naive country girl Colette (Keira Knightley). They get married and live in Paris. He wastes their money on his mistress and other things. With their money struggles, he finds her journals and adapt them into a novel. It becomes highly successful and spawns a vast industry. He pushes her to write more material. He has more mistresses and she would have a long term love affair with a divorced woman named Missy. Colette would battle Willy over her authorship on the road to becoming one of France's great female writers. Right from the start, Willy is an annoying old guy creeping on a young girl. It's toxic from the very beginning. It's an infuriating and tiresome relationship to watch. That's why I would cut out some of their early stuff and bring in Missy earlier. There is more drama to be found in the battle over her authorship. It's a compelling story of female empowerment but it's not a compelling watch. I like Keira in this and Dominic does what's required. This needs to make Willy the full villain and turn up the drama.

This film was a waste of time. Worse, it was boring. By the time it finished, I didn't care what Collette had accomplished. I think it has to be the writing becaause the actors were fine, I guess. This must be one of those films the actors did to pay the mortgage because even they had to see what a snoozefest this script was.