The film definitely has a message that the audience may anxiously want to know about. However, the film delivers this message in a hesitant manner and this is a major weakness in the film. The film skims some critical and interesting issues and fails to state them clearly. These issues are about cultural and religious tolerance and the significance of staying true to one’s personal dreams. The screenplay has little confidence to portray both topics in details (Anreacchio). It fails to offer a substantial weight on the philosophical musings of Gauguin on cultural and religious tolerance. When these issues finally come, the hardly allow for a strictly thoughtful impact. There are a number of flat supporting characters who required more polishing to offer a more appropriate support.
However, I liked some aspects of the film that made it worth watching. I loved the way Kiefer Sutherland portrayed the character Gauguin; as strong protagonists can make a film worth watching, even the most awkward ones. The audience watches Gauguin resign from his job of stock broking to pursue a career in art, later realizing that nothing come easier. Therefore, he makes a decision of going to Tahiti to be inspired; this is quite evident because of the non-linear construction of the film. Gauguin’s two stories, his past life in Paris, and his present life in Tahiti are narrated simultaneously (Anreacchio). However, my criticism of Paradise Found is not going to be in this respect because I believe it was one of the biggest merits of the screen play. It managed to increase my curiosity and when I got to understand the structure of the film, I got more curious. More interesting was how Gauguin left his lucrative career to end up being an artist.
No one may argue with the visual aspects of the film. It is undoubtedly splendid and manages to capture the topics in depth. The film also evokes the viewer’s emotions. The ever-increasing clash between Gauguin and his wife