20
Sadly, instead of situating the l'amour fou in the artistic ferment of the period (1917-1920), Davis twists the period to fit the story.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
20
Los Angeles Times by Carina Chocano
Deeply silly and tendentious.
38
New York Daily News by Jami Bernard
It's hard to take this oddball movie seriously.
40
The real-life Modigliani did indeed live a short, tragic life, but this factually inaccurate, plodding film makes it feel twice as long.
30
A tiresome, hammy and ultimately annoying portrait of the artist as a young drunk.
50
The Hollywood Reporter by Kirk Honeycutt
Garcia has his moments as a wild man but the script never really allows him to plumb the artist's emotional depths.
50
Can't overcome a didactic script.
42
Entertainment Weekly by Scott Brown
The lushness of a Modigliani is largely absent from Modigliani.
10
The New York Times by Stephen Holden
The best and maybe the only use to be made of the catastrophic screen biography Modigliani is to serve as a textbook outline of how not to film the life of a legendary artist.