Anschauen Rodin


Rodin is a movie starring Vincent Lindon, Izïa Higelin, and Séverine Caneele. An account of the famous French sculptor's romance with Camille Claudel.

Other Titles
ロダン カミーユと永遠のアトリエ, Rodin: Az alkotó, Auguste Rodin
Running Time
1 hours 59 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Biography, Romance, Drama
Jacques Doillon
Jacques Doillon
Izïa Higelin, Bernard Verley, Séverine Caneele, Vincent Lindon
France, USA, Belgium
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

An account of the famous French sculptor's romance with Camille Claudel.

Comments about biography «Rodin» (16)

Juan Price photo
Juan Price

With all the famous scenes from The Godfather, Godfather II, and The Godfather Part III, you could expect something similar to the aforementioned films. But what you get instead is a wonderfully crafted film that is very much a sequel to the aforementioned films but also fits with the previous films in a sense. Like The Godfather, Godfather II, and Godfather Part III, "Three Colors: Blue" is not only very much a sequel, but a complete turn in the story as well. You see, when the film opens, young Emmett (Mads Mikkelsen) is leaving the Mexican mob to join the CIA. When he arrives, he finds himself sent to America to help with the civil rights movement. The rest of the film follows the progress of this character from his journey from the Mexican mob, to the US embassy, to the CIA, to the CIA, and then back to the Mexican mob. From this point on, you will see the evolution of Emmett as he experiences the ups and downs of his life as well as the ups and downs of the civil rights movement. But it is the end of the film that is the most interesting part of the film. It is the moment when Emmett learns the fate of his father. This revelation of the man's true identity leads to a very significant turn of events in the film. While I won't reveal what happens, I can say that it is quite a turning point in the film. You will see the change in Emmett, but it is the change that makes the film more interesting than the previous films. What you will also notice is that there are some similarities between the civil rights movement in the film and the civil rights movement in real life. It is a movie that portrays real life events very well, and this is where the movie excels. You see how real life situations were handled, and it is the change in Emmett's character that is the most interesting. Another part of the film that I thought was very interesting was the relationship between John and Ned. The bond between these two characters is very much the same as the one between the characters in the Godfather films. They both have secrets that they have to keep hidden, but they also have the desire to help other people. They want to help all people, but they can't help each other, so they have to rely on each other. It is also very interesting to see how they are connected to each other. Another thing that is very interesting is how they deal with the death of their son. At the beginning, you see the most of the death of their son, but the relationship between them is still very much alive. It is almost as if they don't want to let go of each other, but they do have to. The last thing I would like to mention about the film is that it has a very interesting visual style. This is very much similar to the style that was used in the Godfather films. It is very stylish, and it makes the film feel more real and powerful. You will also see that the film is not afraid to show a darker tone. In addition, there are a lot of things that you will notice about the film, but they are not that noticeable. For example, you will see a lot of the violence in the film. When you see violence, it is very

Alexander photo

It was like I was watching a comedy version of a documentary of the Holocaust. It was well-written and well-acted. As for me, I have the feeling that it's getting some bad reviews. I am not saying that it's bad, just that it's different from other Holocaust movies. I don't know if it's because it's an American movie or because I like to know the context of a film. I think it was a movie that would make me think about my own life and my own family history. I think it's interesting that it's not being compared to other Holocaust movies, and it's also interesting that I haven't heard a lot about it. Maybe it's because I like to watch a movie with my own thoughts and not someone else's. It's not a perfect movie, but I think it's better than other Holocaust movies that were made a few years ago. I'm glad that it is getting good reviews, but I don't think it's too good.

Phillip photo

I read the reviews and was not expecting much. I was wrong. I have been a fan of the play since I was a kid and was excited to see the film adaptation. I was not disappointed. It was a very good film, but I think it could have been better. The cast was great, but I think they could have been a little more fleshed out. It is a great story and I was very interested in the characters. I think they could have done a little more with the end. I also felt that the ending was a little too rushed. I am glad that I saw the film because I would not have been able to stand it without seeing it. I was very disappointed with the cast, but I think they did a good job. I think they did a great job in the film. I would recommend it to anyone who has not seen it. I think the actors did a great job. I am very happy that I saw the film. I am glad I did. I think it is a great film and I will be buying it when it comes out on DVD.

Bobby photo

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. It was a good drama. It had a good plot and a good ending. I wasn't really bored because of the two hours. I didn't really want the film to end. I guess I felt like that because I thought the film could have been longer. There were some scenes I liked, but it didn't really have a lot of action. I liked the old school music and the song "In The Name Of Love" was beautiful. It was a good film. I liked it.

Albert photo

Barry Levinson's screen adaptation of John Irving's The Case of the Two Girls is an all-star cast and production design that has almost everything a proper production would have. It has all the essentials of the tragedy and tragedy of love, the great lines and strong acting that you will find in a true love story. And yet the two female leads are utterly flawed and ultimately lose the ability to truly connect with one another. Neither of them are entirely believable, and they are a total trifle over the top. The two main characters are not even remotely likable. The first is an aspiring actress who decides to take a break from her career to spend time with her boyfriend, a successful Hollywood director. The second is an aspiring actress who decides to go off on a tangent of her own and go on a romantic adventure with her boyfriend. This movie has a strong musical score, especially for the first half of the movie, and a great job at setting up the emotions that we will be feeling during the second half. The first half was a dramatic, highly effective display of the effect that the breakup of a relationship can have on both partners. And then the second half of the movie, which is mostly of the 'feelings'-based nature, did a great job of showing the internal turmoil that occurs in people who are still in love, but are unsure of how to go forward in their relationship. But that is just the beginning of the problems. The problem is that the first half of the movie is so emotionally powerful that it will leave the viewer with no sense of closure, only with the need to see the second half. The second half is more of a personal saga and should not be treated as a stand alone film. I did not mind this movie at all. It was an effective movie, and I was able to enjoy it from beginning to end. I think that I actually preferred it to the book. It was more realistic, more true to life. It was more of a drama than a comedy. And then it was because the director, Barry Levinson, brought in two very gifted actresses, Rebecca Hall and Cybill Shepherd, to play the two leading characters. And both of them did a great job of carrying the movie and had great chemistry with one another. The other actors were actually pretty good as well, although I felt that Debra Messing could have been more convincing as the doctor. Cybill Shepherd was a great choice as well, because she had the right amount of drama and insecurity and passion. She played the role of the doctor very well. She was believable in the role. And she played the role of the actress very well, as well. And then we have the writing, which was also very good. I think that this was the most consistent, emotional, and realistic part of the movie. The acting was almost flawless. I was able to feel the emotions that they were feeling, and that is what a good production is all about. The directing was perfect. It was very realistic. And the directing was just perfect. It was no question that this movie was very well done. I was able to feel the emotions that they were feeling. And that is what a good production is all about. I believe that this is one of the best movies of the year, and definitely one of the best movies of the year in the history of Hollywood. This movie was

Albert photo

There is an old saying, "If you want a sense of humor in a movie, put it in the funniest parts". If you are not a fan of the work in question, this would not be the film for you. The first half of the film is well written, and there is some really good acting. The second half, however, is somewhat disjointed, and the characters don't have much emotional connection to each other. The pace and the writing was a bit slow in the first half. The film is one that would be great for older kids, and young adults. I think the message of the film is very important, and the way it is delivered is a bit hokey. I would recommend this to younger viewers, but don't expect a great film, just some nice-to-see-and-listen-to entertainment.

Megan Evans photo
Megan Evans

There is no such thing as an independent movie, and this one was no exception. It had all the makings of an independent film, but the lack of a coherent plot and character development was a big part of the problem. It's a little bit like The West Wing and Lost. What you have here is a modern TV version of a classic TV show, and the TV series is a wonderful thing. It has a cast of famous actors, and they are all excellent. But this movie was flawed because it was not able to keep up with the pace of the show. It was slow and sometimes boring. I did like the movie, but it just seemed to drag on too long. I was hoping for more action, but that didn't come either. It was too tame for my taste, and didn't fit the tone of the show. If you have not seen the TV series, watch it, but I'm not sure if you will be able to tell the difference.

Sean B. photo
Sean B.

Based on the man's life and death, "Passion of Joan of Arc" is a portrait of how a fearless Catholic priest, married with a wife and three children, lived. At the same time, the film was filmed in France, which shows how " Joan of Arc " became a symbol of the triumph of the faith and an icon of Catholic values. The movie was also the first documentary film about the life of the girl who, in 1444, was executed as a witch in France. The film's title "Passion of Joan of Arc" can be interpreted as "the huntress of the past", which, for its viewers, is more of a description of Joan's character than a film itself. The film was the first to be shot in France, which means that " Joan of Arc " was not only an image of the victim's suffering, but also an image of a French girl who, in the 1444, became a victim of France's medieval superstition. This film is often known for its controversy, which, in some ways, caused problems for its production. Some of the key scenes were filmed in the background of the church, which was later edited and re-edited in order to make it more effective for the public. It was made by a different director, Jacques Audiard, who has made some of the most notorious and controversial films of his career, like "Le Havre, La Ville De La Ville" and "Le Gros Bien" (both filmed in France), and "A Century Of Darkness" (also filmed in France). These two movies show how the same director can be so controversial, and that the French film industry has a lot of controversy that is very visible, which may have the opposite effect on people who would like to watch a documentary film. The most controversial scene is the scene in which Joan and her husband are ordered to gather their weapons. The reason for this scene is that the movie had originally been made in English and it was adapted to French. The director claimed that the scene was not needed because the soldiers were listening in on the conversation and they would not be in on the conversation. However, in fact, the director has a history of taking advantage of his actors and has edited them to make them act differently than they would in the original movie. The director has also edited the film so that the actors were not speaking at the same time, but in two different scenes. These scenes were never shot, and Audiard has insisted on making the actors speak at the same time. In addition to the controversies that are evident in the movie, the film has been criticized for its religious content, which is not necessarily bad. But what is bad is that Audiard does not have any religious convictions and has admitted that the content of the movie is very strange. It is a strange film, and one that is not suitable for everyone. However, the film does not hide its religious content, and is aimed at a very religious audience. People who are not religious, and who prefer a more secular approach, may be slightly disappointed by the movie's religious content, and may not be interested in the film.

Lawrence photo

I found this film an incredible piece of work. It was definitely a work of art, but it did not do it for me. For some reason, I didn't connect with the characters and it wasn't the plot that was the problem. It was the portrayal of society and its values. For instance, what was the big deal about the lack of music in this movie? I am not a musician and had never even heard of a piece of music before I saw this film. Yet the film tries to portray the entire band as a group of musicians. Even the songs that the main characters sing were just one or two melodies and none of them were played by any musicians. A few times in the film, it was like they were just playing chords. But that was only during the scenes where they were working. It did not add any depth to the characters or the plot. This was an artistic and significant film for me. I was left thinking, "What was the point of this?"

Zachary Lee photo
Zachary Lee

I didn't think the movie was that good. It was just okay. I didn't think it was great, but I was expecting more. The acting was good, but the movie wasn't great. I think the movie could have been better, but it wasn't great. I think it was okay, but it wasn't great.

Doris photo

It's a shame that the film has such a low rating, because the movie is actually quite good. I have not read the book, so I cannot compare the two. But I did read the book, and I was very impressed with the story and the execution. The acting was superb, especially the two leads, especially Bill Murray. I think the film could have been a lot better, but it was still good. I was a bit disappointed with the ending, but it was still good. Overall, I give it a 7 out of 10.

Juan photo

This is one of the few I've seen in which one of the stars actually makes a good choice of roles. What could have been a very dull affair became a lively, moving story of the agony of a young man's life. Not for the squeamish, the film has some graphic scenes, but they are fairly restrained. And the cast is excellent. Keitel is remarkable as the young man, with a quiet dignity and vulnerability which is his in the end. The supporting players are good, as is the director. This film is well worth watching. Keitel should do more of these.

Debra photo

If you like the first film, you will most likely like this one. It's still better than I thought it would be, but I still think it has some problems. I liked how the film focused more on the male relationship. The little girl was the first of many point in the film that showed the connection between the mother and the son. I liked the idea of making the daughter's father mad because she was a piece of crap. The son was the first of many plot devices that would come later. The father's death was also very important. The last scene of the film where they show the dad and daughter sitting down and talking was very well done. The dialogue was more raw and had more impact than in the previous film. The final scene was also very moving. I also liked the fact that it was a musical number. There was also a few parts that were different from the original film. They did a great job in making the characters more distinct, but I felt that the acting was lacking a bit in this one. The film has a lot of style, but the acting was more or less mediocre. The acting in the first film was very good. However, it was hard to tell if they were acting or not in this one. They were all fine in their roles. I liked the fact that the mother became more of an emotional character and she started to really care for her son. I also liked the idea of the father having his own personal assistant, which I think is very cool. There was also the idea of the mother having to send her son to a boarding school, which was pretty interesting. There was also a scene where she was more of a strong character. I also liked the idea of having a car accident and having her son get a call from his mother. I also liked the fact that the father had a new house, but was still a bad dad. He was also able to make a phone call and that was a bit surprising. I also liked how he did things in his house that his mother couldn't. This film is still great, but it wasn't as good as the first one. I still think it's a good movie though.

Carolyn C. photo
Carolyn C.

I found this movie to be very thought provoking and thought provoking at the same time. I would suggest this movie to anyone who likes movies with a message to help them to better understand their life and the problems they face. The movie was a good movie to watch especially if you are looking for a movie to watch with a friend, or are looking for a movie to watch with your children. I found it to be very interesting and thought provoking.

Tiffany Hill photo
Tiffany Hill

As the stories of the series continue to be told, one is always fascinated with the genesis of these characters. It is fascinating to see how the personalities and attitudes of these people change as they age. I thought that I would never be able to handle what I found out about the life of Walt Disney, but this movie made me care about his life. His battles with his father and his sexual orientation are fascinating, and his younger years are so much better than his old age. It is also interesting to see how much of an impact his children's stories had on him. I thought that this movie was very touching, and very inspirational. I recommend it to everyone who is looking for a movie that will make them think.

Lori Barrett photo
Lori Barrett

I enjoyed this movie, and I think it's one of the better "hidden gems" of the year. I don't think it's a masterpiece, but it's a good movie. I also thought the acting was very good, and the cinematography was great. I think the story was pretty good, and I think the music was great. I also liked the fact that the movie was based on a true story. I also thought the ending was a little strange, but I think it was necessary. I also thought the movie was a little slow, but I think it was necessary. Overall, I think this movie is very good. I give it a 7/10.