Reviews

Waste of everything, including viewers' time.

Great actors, great scenery, nice gags, nice citations. And in the end of the day, nothing. Emptiness. Starting with some good jokes, making fun of the nazis, borrowing from Lubitsch and Wilder, everything into a huge mixer, full speed. What we are presented with is the result, this seemingly unplanned and un-directed cutting of everything into a film.

Where is the overarching idea? What holds this film together? Just (good!) piece after (good) piece. Chronologically everything is in order. Though film-wise it isn't. A few moments of comedy, followed by some moments of drama, love story, and ensuing some mockery on nazis. Rinse and repeat.

No line in this film, except of picking anything from right and left that one comes across to be dragged into the story.

Enjoy watching Penelope Cruz, Hanna Schygulla, and others. But don't expect to see a film with a consistent theme.

I feel Jean-Claude Carrière behind the story. It drags on and yet it fascinates. It has a pinch of Bunuel in it. It doesn't show the blood, and not the outwardly world. Despite of the incredible state of affairs, with war, cholera, daily deaths, sufferings, we are taken and follow in a world above the physical misery.

What is displayed is another world; a world of strength, confidence, and most of all, love.

The movie doesn't work on the pictures. It works on what the audience can build up between the individual frames. And we learn to see outstanding individuals, not following the daily reasoning and cheating.

It struck me most, how - and we don't know when it happened - the heroine fell in love, and for the first time after more than one hour into the movie ... smiles! At HIM. And how, I think for the first time after one and a half hour of the running movie, the hero could actually save a person from the cholera with that strange method. Here we see for the first time his feelings for HER. His actions had been clear before; though shrouding his feelings behind convention.

I for one also do love the end. It is not the Hollywoodian kissing sequence, though still open. Never mind the actual outcome. We have seen at least two people living their lives to what they could drag out of these lives; and - most important - remain good and considerate people throughout.

Real role models in our dreadful times of a sorry state of affairs.

This movie IS American, if not Hollywoodian. So that's the bad part. It is so fscking American. Not French, not European. It drags out of everyone anything that one can drag. Comedy, tragedy, fun, blood, you name it. Pandering to the galleys. Hate this.

In the background, however, something else plays along. Everyday life stories. Concentrated, if not distilled, but everyday life. Marriage. Disappointment. Sexual frustration. Borderline craziness. But everything hidden carefully behind well-devised normality, one that is anything but normal. Nobody in this movie, sympathetic or not, in the end turns out to be a freak on the inside; propped up by an outwardly stable construction. And this reminds me of the master of this topic, Luis Bunuel.

Many didn't like him, not the communists and neither the fascists, because nobody would come out of his stories as the good one. Each and every person would fight for his own, in his own little prison cell in which he fights his own insanity. And so here. Lester Burnham isn't better, really. He is advantageous only because of the situation that allows him to come out slightly better. Angela, the most empty person in the movie finally concedes to still be a virgin. So he can't actually sleep with her; as much as he would have wished. He is kind of hero only, because someone mistook him.

Everyone tries to pretend to be good, or do good, like in the Angel Exterminator by Bunuel. To give an example. And yet without the least chance to escape from his tightly fitting corset.

Do not we all betray ourselves when we pretend to be good, a start a happy marriage, childhood, parenthood, neighborhood, work relation? When, in the end, we end up as career-minded real estate agents, masturbating to the thoughts of our kids friends, fighting our dads by playing out just the opposite life of what our dads were hoping for, becoming paralyzed by overwhelming husbandry, exploiting work relationships, lying to one another for career reasons, threaten with blackmail, are inconsiderate to our partners' wishes?

Not 'nobody is perfect'. Rather make it 'everyone is an axxhole, deep down inside'. One way or another. Despite all intentions.

I still wonder, if the twist was intended to be so obvious. Question mark?

If so, then it is kind of okay. If not, it is a flawed narrative.

After all, a movie that deserves more than the current rating, since it is one of a few in this new millennium that shows that we still have capable actors around; and that movies can be made without explosives, bombs, extended fight scenes and without pornography - and still be great movies. This one features a splendid encounter of Fanny Ardant, Gérard Depardieu and Emmanuelle Béart in interactions that could almost be put on a stage. Totally classic movie / theatre. Almost a must-watch.

Fanny Ardant makes an attractive woman, sometimes more attractive than Béart. Depardieu peaks as the seemingly unknowing husband. And Béart changes from cold to warm-hearted woman companion in the last third of the plot.

A movie not to be missed.

I can't believe the great ratings. Must have to make with the actors and the director.

There are plenty of Dracula movies, and this one doesn't add anything. It isn't funny, it isn't enlightening, and neither does it produce much of suspense. The 1923 Nosferatu still gives me shivers, and Mel Brooks' enjoyment and some laughter.

At times strange cinematography. A grotesque Count Dracula, a grumpy, ugly old man. Silly shots of vampires dying in pain when a wooden stick is hammered through their hearts. And an excruciating death of Dracula in the end, strangely enough not burnt by sunlight.

The good parts? Actors, settings in good old England.

Save your precious time for something more rewarding.

... and it did.

Dujardin good as always, but a story that took out all the light-heartedness of the previous two movies.

It had good parts, great potential: The ageing OSS117 guides a promising member of the next generation. Funny was OSS117 working on the computing machinery of the early 1980es.

Funny also, the ageing OSS117 noticing his manliness fading away slowly. And his envy versus the next generation of spies. His special consignment. Lot of good spots in this movie.

Though all that can't turn around a dreary makeup of a story. I imagine the script-writers sweating for fear of actually being racist behind their type-writers, thereby messing up whatever potential there was.

Nice effects, reasonably good actors, suspense. Good effects.

Though it can't be more than 3 for its contained silliness. Following the original book by Alexandre Dumas pretty closely, there is just additional witch-craft crap throughout the movie. I wonder if it might have been added to play with effects?

In any case, this brings down an otherwise good movie to a rather ridiculous level. While Lady Winter has a lot of potential given to her by the plot in the book, giving her supernatural to diabolic powers in the movie makes little sense, and rather distort the circles that she could have drawn around Richelieu, Buckingham, d'Artagnan.

To me it is mostly weird. Is this a crime story? A typical Woody Allen marriage development? Or just a 'Manhattan -New York'-life description?

It starts weird. Nothing happening, just following the relatively boring daily life of a middle-aged New York couple.

Intertwined typical married-couple dialogue. Suspicions of a bored wife. Jealousy of a more-manly man.

What the heck is going on?

Bodies show up and disappear. At some moment, a larger group trying to implicate a suspicious character into recording parts of a blackmail scheme. The typical Woody Allen talk, like in "Don't drink the water".

All in a large bowl, and carefully mixed. In the end, it turned out to have been reasonable fun to have watched. No big thing, though.

Anything between marriage and murder - anything between light entertainment, fun and societal analysis.

Despite of famous actors, it is a non-starter. First and foremost, Lauren Bacall has never been an actress; except of on the side of Humphrey Bogart in 'Have and have not'. She's not convincing here, as women to fall in love with at first sight.

Also, the plot is similarly predictable and wooden; maybe except of the last quarter of an hour.

Unfortunately, I'd say, though, because the underlying plot is great groundwork, and I can imagine a dozen of script writers and directors to use the time for better: development. Not static personalities like in this movies. So the plot rather drags along, and carries the actors with it.

Even Rock Hudson comes across with inhibitions. Who actually curtailed him? Dorothy Malone is unexpectedly shallow and not always convincing as the one in constant love with Mitch. Worst scene is the one down on the river side for her. Though in court, she managed to rise above mediocrity.

My usual way of recommendation: If it so happens to be run, watch it. If you have to take a detour, skip it.

I used the sad death of Carlos Saura to review this fabulous movie. It just seems to suit the sad occasion.

It is a Must-See for Ana, of course. One of the best, if not the best child actors ever. If only for Ana, it must not be missed.

Scenes to be remembered: the three girls playing 'family' when the aunt is away. Playing hide-and-seek. And a bunch of other stuff.

I really wished Bunuel had made this one, though. It borrows heavily from him, including the concept of an almost open end: the kids on their way to school. Different from Bunuel, however, finally we understand what we have seen at that very moment.

I wished he had directed it himself, because this one, to my taste, is a tad too black. To me at least, it could have made with some of the usual twists and turns of Bunuel; the lighter side, without losing its direction. The only one scene that took the black, bleek, depression off my mind was the one, when the housekeeper opens her blouse.

Politically interesting, this movie was made just after the death of Franco, the dictator. I used to stay in Spain before his death, and later. The people had fantastic high hopes for the future, for what democracy would bring to them. I perceive these hope in this movie. The times of draconian government ends like the nightmares of the kids. A sunny morning with "Porqué te vas" rises over Madrid.

... will never touch me, in this lifetime.

Maybe I'm too old to understand why movies have to drag on, showing blood, fight, despair, ... Titanic, this one, they all bug me for the much too descriptive cinematography. I don't need to see people dying, in length. I don't need blood.

Wow, a great undertaking, this movie! Could have made it into my top 10, Nobile and his insomniae, meeting the spirits of the participants somewhere between reality and dreams at the break of day. A Nobile dragging himself before his judges.

Unravelling like 'The Dead of Night' (1945). 70 to 80 minutes, hints at what happened on the ice, discussions among those involved. Finn Malmgren talking to his lover, and vice versa. Developing and exploring human depths.

Oh, well, this is supposed to be a review, not a wishlist. 7 are well deserved for what this movie is worth as it is.

Alas, the movie does spoil the larger potential of the story.

Just had the chance to watch this movie for the first time; before unknown to me. And I was fascinated! Great acting, a somewhat unusual Lino Ventura in great counter-acting with Robert Hirsch.

The plot captivating, and out of the ordinary.

The title makes little sense, neither in French nor in German. So, what one could well argue against this movie, is that it is unpolished. At times it looks like just improvised from a skeleton of story board.

A real climax is, when the presumed culprit goes to the circus and encounters exactly the person he is looking for. That's done extremely well, because the audience is steered towards recognizing the identity of the man who had disappeared.

The setting is well done, almost ancien régime, with a close to perfect film-noir-lighting.

Delphine Seyrig is the best here. Though cinematography, direction, lighting are close to perfect, too.

A far way off the silly kind of lesbian vampire movies that we are usually presented. This one has class, develops - I think - at just the appropriate speed.

John Karlen and Danielle Quimet spoil the whole lot. Without them, it could have developed into a great piece of art. Both are wooden, uninspiring and seemingly uninspired. Therefore, Countess Bathory has a very easy game at getting the upper hand. I for one would have wished far better actors for a serious quarrel to develop instead of Karlen and Quimet just hanging around, seemingly just waiting for the end of the movie and cashing in.

Andrea Rau, on the other hand, is convincing as well in her role as secretary-cum-lover on the way out.

The movie is plastered with minor well done and funny tricks. The one I like best is the silhouette of the Countess folding out on the beach to protect her new acquaintance. Another one is 'mother'. For a moment I thought that 'mother' came from the exact same.'bank of the river' that the Countess comes from. The bumbling retired police officer is well put into his place, just as the concierge.

If you have the chance, go and watch this one. It doesn't reach up to Polanski, but is easily second in the category of treating this subject in more modern times.

It's great entertainment, and more great acting by great stars.

I can never give more than 7 due to a completely over-drafted, close to ridiculous story with overextended fighting scenes. Totally unnecessary, because there is a lot of details, small though relevant items, connections, details. Catherine Zeta-Jones nicely fitted with make-up to look 10 years younger than her actually age, and charming as always. I really enjoyed the scene with her in confession with the fake priest. Only one of many scenes worthwhile enjoying.

Just watch this movie!

Seriously undervalued movie, that I just happened to discover.

It moves step by step, showing a relatively short trip by train during German occupation of France. What we see is a true love story between two people. Their love develops steps by step deeper and deeper and the director leads us sensibly to accompany said ever growing love, step by step.

The best part is that the movie never leaves the correct balance between true emotion and sentiment. Once too often such stories move into the sentimental region, losing all seriousness. Here this is not the case, fortunately.

Those stories end by the lovers being torn apart forever, for eternity, e.g. By death; or eternal happiness by marriage and a happy family. Luckily this movie spares us all that, and rather offers insights into the realms of true, deep love.

Wholeheartedly recommended!

Difficult to put the finger, though despite of good acting, perfect cast, beautiful effects something seems missing.

At times one has the impression to watch a l'art pour l'art movie; one that hasn't been made for an audience but for self-entertainment and self-pleasing of the crew.

At times lengthy, I found myself looking at my clock: "When the heck will this be over?", and more motivated to find all the citations that are embedded in this movie. From the Pythons to Kubrick.

Though that ought not really by the purpose of movie making, and movie watching.

Movies like they don't make them any longer.

Despite of zillions of handycams and mobile phones, it also required a genius like Rosa von Praunheim to set up a masterpiece in its own class.

For younger people it might be completely incomprehensible; and maybe likewise for viewers who don't speak German.

Two people, outside of the 'desirable' societal conventions, lone wolves, encounter each other while reproducing exactly those conventions en détail that the society to which they don't belong, prescribe.

Like addressing each other with 'Sie' , that is like Sir and Madam. Totally conventionally in their petty bourgeois life style. And yet, still outcasts in that exactly same society.

Two sympathetic lonesome people meet, and become lovers.

Sometimes funny, but never boring.

Everything is quite alright in the acting department here.

But the plot leaves to be desired. Why 1:52 or so, when the plot contains so much lengthy dribble?

The usual bandits, the usual Indians, plenty of cows and horses move along some path to their destination.

While actually everything is about some love stories, lost love, new found love, a tad of hatred because of one guy having killed some people for somewhat unclear reasons.

Actually, I am under the impression that the person who drafted the plot was mostly in for the developments in the love department. And, yet again, with some potentially interesting angles here. Mother and daughter, same-same.

Sorry for the irony, but in comparison to really good westerns, this one is on the lousy side.

Don't let the opportunity pass by to watch another movie with Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider.

Don't expect anything. Strange enough, Kessel wrote great stuff, but in the end this one plot here doesn't cut it. It has holes between the original and the screenplay. So the plot moves along in a clever way, though continuously stumbling over its own feet. Like not using whatever the plot offers, but dragging in detail.

I don't want to go into the spoiler section, therefore I offer a short sentence only on the ending: It doesn't fit. It isn't quite logic. And the very end looks like an effort in educating the audience. Why, actually, after a movie that has already been filled with ethic and moral goodness, and painted the bad guys in all possible shadows of black.

Were it not for the fantastic three main characters, it would be thumbs down.

Not only because of Arletty, the famous.

Not only because of Jacqueline Audry, almost forgotten these days.

But also because of Yves Deniaud, who passed away too early, and seemingly overlooked. Somehow he managed to keep the plot running, the other three in sync. To me he has the traits of a comedian in this movie, an early Coluche.

I found this movie a more pleasant one than the famous stage interpretation by Harold Pinter, probably due to the actual hotel scenes in the beginning. "Hotel California" springs into mind: you can check in anytime, but you can never check out.

If you just want to have a laugh, and don't care about quality, go for it.

In case you are a cinema lover, don't. It made me rather sick.

Here they tried to cook up a non-sensical plot and stick all possible jokes onto it like with a safety pin. Or, I dunno, took a set of not quite so funny jokes, and spun a rather lousy plot line to connect those. Loveless, I'd call it. "What gets people into a cinema" they might have pondered. Laughs and a simple plot. Laurel and Hardy. Here is no Laurel and no Hardy.