I’ve gotta start this review with a pretty embarrassing confession: until last night, I hadn't even heard of Dahan, let alone the lead actress, Marion Cotillard.
I honestly have no clue where they’ve been or what they’ve actually been up to lately. I heard Dahan was doing some music videos and maybe some indie shorts, and Cotillard has been working on stuff with Scott and a few others, though nothing that really made huge waves. As for that movie from yesterday? All I heard was that the acting was top-notch and the story was solid.
Story?
This story is all about Edith Piaf—you know, the legendary "little sparrow" herself. It’s a deep dive into her life, but honestly, it’s just as much a tribute to the soul of old-school New York City back in the day. Through her journey, you really get a feel for that gritty, beautiful atmosphere of the era.
Dahan keeps jumping all over the timeline, which I know drove a lot of people crazy, but honestly? It’s the only way to do it. If you look closely, though, there are still three very clear stages: childhood, the big breakthrough, and those final months leading up to the end.
Our heroine’s whole life just zipped by like some restless little sparrow, never really settling down anywhere for long. So, honestly, there’s no reason why the director wouldn't ditch a standard chronological timeline. I mean, we all know—or at least the movie shows us—that there was that specific moment when Piaf (sparrow) earned her nickname, but she was always that little bird at heart. There's no point in dragging out a predictable timeline to hit every single milestone, because if you look closely, those milestones didn't even exist in a straight line. It actually works way better this way, jumping around in a zigzag pattern. It perfectly captures the constant, wandering energy of her restless soul.
Kate Diaz said:While it might not be everyone's cup of tea, I actually found the non-linear structure and the sheer temporal chaos of the film quite compelling. At certain points, you lose all sense of which era you're currently inhabiting because everything is so beautifully jumbled. It mirrors the chaotic essence of Edith Piaf's own life perfectly.
The only real issues for me were the massive chronological gap regarding WWII and the somewhat thin portrayal of Piaf's romantic life. I feel there was a missed opportunity there; her relationships were just as turbulent and unfocused as the rest of her existence—the highs, the lows, the friendships, and the struggle with alcoholism. On the other hand, the film occasionally veers into being overly pretentious. For instance, the director didn't really need that intense scene showing an elderly woman struggling right before performing at Carnegie Hall when she first heard her signature anthem. In reality, Edith was still doing relatively well then; her health only truly spiraled in those last couple of years. But then again, I suppose that's just "artistic license" at work.
👍
And then there's the acting. Honestly, Marion Cotillard's performance is going to stick with people for a long time. It’s one of those things you just can't shake. That said, she definitely goes a bit overboard in certain spots... a little too much, if you ask me.
Kate Diaz said:While it might not be everyone's cup of tea, I actually found the non-linear structure and the sheer temporal chaos of the film quite compelling. At certain points, you lose all sense of which era you're currently inhabiting because everything is so beautifully jumbled. It mirrors the chaotic essence of Edith Piaf's own life perfectly.
The only real issues for me were the massive chronological gap regarding WWII and the somewhat thin portrayal of Piaf's romantic life. I feel there was a missed opportunity there; her relationships were just as turbulent and unfocused as the rest of her existence—the highs, the lows, the friendships, and the struggle with alcoholism. On the other hand, the film occasionally veers into being overly pretentious. For instance, the director didn't really need that intense scene showing an elderly woman struggling right before performing at Carnegie Hall when she first heard her signature anthem. In reality, Edith was still doing relatively well then; her health only truly spiraled in those last couple of years. But then again, I suppose that's just "artistic license" at work.
👍
The acting is just straight-up "astonishing," as we Americans would say.
On my scale of perfection, only three people have ever earned a top spot. It was just two guys—Al Pacino in *Dog Day Afternoon* and Jack Nicholson in *About Schmidt*—and one woman, Ellen Burstyn in *Requiem for a Dream*. But today? I’m officially adding another woman to that list.
Marion Cotillard is absolutely killing it. Seriously, everything about her is just flawless—the look, the way she talks, even how perfectly her lips match the dialogue. Her movements, that slight slouch, even the way she stumbles through a scene... it’s all just perfect. She’s got it down.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: those old-school vibes feel a bit overdone. But honestly? That’s not on her. It’s the director's fault—or whoever else was behind the scenes.
I saw someone mention somewhere that Marion Cotillard isn't just playing Edith in that movie—she actually *is* Edith. Honestly? I’m totally with them. When you look at photos of Cotillard side-by-side with Piaf, they're practically identical. It's wild.
I was already totally blown away, but then I took a look at these two photos and honestly? I’m speechless.
Check out this shot of Marion Cotillard. Honestly, she just has that presence, you know? It’s hard to look away.I just stumbled upon this shot from the movie. It’s such a vibe. Honestly, seeing this image just takes me right back to that whole era. It's one of those photos that hits you immediately, you know? Just pure, unadulterated mood.Honestly, it’s not just that Cotillard plays Edith exactly like she is—it's that her performance is totally different from who Marion Cotillard actually is in real life.
I need to circle back to this for a second. Look, I get it—you can't cram an entire lifetime of chaos into 140 minutes, and trying to summarize a legend like Piaf is a massive undertaking. But honestly? I felt like Dahan lost the plot a few times. Just to give you a couple of examples: the movie mentions she was nearly blind, but completely skips over her being almost deaf, which would have totally changed the trajectory of her career if it had actually happened. Then there’s that bit about her dealing with Marlene Dietrich, but they act like she never even met Yves Montand. And that's wild, because she’s the one who actually discovered him! Sure, she helped out someone like Charles Aznavour by taking him on tour too, but that might just be extra info. Still, it felt off.
Honestly, this movie has some totally pointless moments. Out of nowhere—and if you aren't paying close attention, you’re going to be super confused about whether it’s a dream or reality—they just drop this line on her: "Your daughter is dead. Meningitis." But here's the thing: there isn't a single mention of a daughter, a father, or even how she was born before or after that scene. If there's no context, there's really no reason to bring up her death at all. It just feels unnecessary.
Aside from his daughter, that messy car accident is definitely going to haunt him—the one where he falls into a morphine addiction and everything just starts spiraling downhill.
Driving some random car straight into a tree while blasting music against a gorgeous backdrop looks cool on camera—that’s just a minor, trivial fender bender in the grand scheme of things—but honestly? It’s completely unnecessary.
They totally skipped over the part about her photos being traded for 150 fake passports—the ones she smuggled in during her second visit to that prison camp to sing. Those passports actually saved lives. Look, I get it. You can't include everything, and Dahan himself said he’s making a portrait, not a full-blown biopic. But seriously? It makes zero sense to dwell on some obscure French actor like Paul Meurisse while ignoring massive moments like this. This was arguably the biggest discovery ever made: finding Yves Montanda, who was probably the most famous singer in the world at the time.
The segment about the boxer—who actually climbed all the way to the middleweight world championship title, by the way—is handled beautifully. Their whole whirlwind romance was already splashed across the big screen back in 1983 in that movie "Edith and Marcel," where his son, Marcel Cerdan Jr., played him. It’s the kind of thing you just have to see.
One guy gets mentioned in just a single sentence, while the other isn't even brought up.
The absolute best part of the movie—and I’m talking about the directing here, not just the acting—is that one specific moment when she steps out onto the stage. The music starts building, you know it's time for her to belt it out, she opens her mouth, but then... total silence. We don't hear a single note from her. Instead, we're hit with this massive wave of applause and cheering, and suddenly she's already mid-performance on a completely different song while still technically "singing" that first one. It is just stunning.
The movie basically wraps things up with her performance at Carnegie Hall, but honestly? It feels a bit fake. She spends the whole film barely able to walk or even speak, only to suddenly become this bubbly, energetic force who’s practically dancing on stage. Look, I get it—the filmmakers probably wanted that moment, but it just felt off.
I have to say, for a biopic about a singer, this movie feels a bit light on the soundtrack. They definitely could have squeezed in more tunes. And honestly? They really should've avoided playing "What a Wonderful World" over and over again. I get it, it's her biggest hit and a classic, but still...
I have to say, the screening at AMC started off on such a hilarious note. They had the word "Legends" plastered all over the screen, but then the subtitle underneath just said "Legend." I haven't laughed that hard in an AMC theater in ages. Honestly, I can't wait to see what they try to do with the "Dreamworks" logo next time...
And here’s one last little trivia nugget that probably could have been squeezed into a single line of the movie: Piaf actually passed away on the exact same day as her close friend, the legendary writer Jean Cocteau, who was the one who wrote "Le bel indifferent" just for her.
It’s been a long time since a movie at AMC hit me this hard—honestly, maybe only *Apocalypto* all year. As far as biopics go, it’s a really decent portrait of a legend.
The directing is great in spots and solid overall. The acting? Absolutely top-tier. Every single actor was on point; I can't recall a single weak performance. Plus, the soundtrack is just phenomenal. So, here's my take:
subjectively—10/10 (I love Piaf, I love chanteuses, and I live for biopics)
objectively—8.5/10 (the plot drags a bit in places and the direction isn't flawless, but the acting carries it up by almost two whole points)
Seriously, go see it.
I have to start this review with a shameful confession: until last night, I hadn't even heard of Dahan or the lead, Marion Cotillard. But I'm ending it with the fact that those names aren't going anywhere after this movie.
