Film Reviews by CSF

I liked the film. It has everything to be great: the idea, the actors, the story. And yet, it could have been so much better! What's nearly ruin it is the pace. Repetitive scenes and padding. What a pity, it could have been a master piece! Still worth watching.

Intellectual films are cheap to make. I'm afraid this one is above my station, I am not a psychiatrist. Again it is showing how boring Iceland must be and yet I know it is not. It is not the country, it is the people who are limited in this film. It is supposed to be a love story but as everybody is hiding their feelings, it is difficult to see where love stands, appears or oozes. In fact the chaaraters themselves are wondering where love is and throughout the film.

A so called intellectual film. I liked Bergman's films and people should watch them. There is a freedom of expression that is banned today. As for that film, I found it boring, almost a travel agency advert. Is Faroe that island where they killed hundreds dolphins every year? Bergman's films are far more interesting than his life.

Verhoeven has always had an obsession with women and it is a good job that it is expressed in films only. I agree with the fact that by repressing sex drives people mad and that religion didn't understand it. It is also mad to repress sex for women only and that is well shown in the film. An excess of unecessary nudity is perhaps an aspect of Verhoeven's obsession. A bit too long. The film is not obscene, what is obscene is to tell women that they must be like the Virgin Mary: have children but stay a virgin and Verhoeven mocks this idea with a blaspheme. The statue of the Virgin Mary becomes an instrument for sex. I am surprised the Vatican didn't say anything. They did for an innocent J.L Godard's film! Whether I like the film or not, it is a 'necessary film' to counter balance some silly beliefs.

A very pleasant film to watch. Very realistic. I recognized some of the problems I had when I was a teacher in a prison. I failed to make them perform a play, mainly because of my lack of continuous will power and courage. And also the little interest of the prison staff who see problems only. Kad Merad, the teacher is both a fantastic actor and a fantastic teacher. This is a very entertaining and useful film. It should be shown in schools and prisons of course. Why, ô why in England a "useful" film is not considered as entertainment???

The other actors are remarkable, they make you believe it is a documentary.

I saw the film in France, when it came out. Robert Bresson was in the fashion for the 'intellectuels'. I was bored to tears and I thought I was too young to appreciate such a high standard so I wanted to see it again. My feelings are even worse. I found the film boring, pretentious and typical of this era. The actors play as if they were reciting the telephone book, showing cardboard feelings, trying to look like Nietzsche in deep thinking. I don't buy... maybe too expensive for my intelligence.

I hate when people think they re-discover periods like The Avant-Garde or the Absurd. Only geniuses like Peter Greenaway, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Luis Bunnuel could create this style...with style. At least they were not boring.

Or else, it is above my Art station.

It is quite possible that I am not refined enough to appreciate this film because the quality of this film went right above my station. I keep wondering what is so great about it. The usual story of a murder and not knowing who's done it. The best scene is played by the dog, he should have had the Oscar of the best animal actor. Why this film went abroad when so many excellent French films never pass the Channel. It is easier for a migrant to cross the Channel that for a French film.

From the trailers and the Cannes Festival, I expected a lot. The first half was great then it become liquified and very boring.

Once more it shows that it is very rare to find happiness coming from Russia. All their writers, poets, film makers talk about violence, crualty, and suffering. I feel sorry for the population itself. A pity as they have great artists and intellectuals. The film is one more exemple and it lasts too long. The best scene, of course, is their arrival in India and the reaction of the Indian people.

It is a modern version of the famous Jean Cocteau's film, The Beauty and the Beast. I loved the Shape of the Water too. I am a fan of Guillermo del Toro. His films are unusual, refreshing, sometimes with a poisonous or disturbing atmosphere. He grows beautiful flowers on manure. The ending of the film is very much like the Beauty and the Beast (NOT the Disney one) the Cocteau's one. Happiness can fly up or dive down, it has the same effect; love takes you very far. No, it is not naf, not soapy, not corny. I feel sorry for people who think like that, they lost their ability to feel.

I loved everything in this film: thewriter, the director, the actresses BUT not the story. I mean the way the story was told. I find Tennessee Williams better for reading because his words are more effective than the pictures. Usually there is something very poisonnous in the heart of the play like in Suddenly Last Summer. Here, this kind of poisonnous atmosphere is brought up by the tramp who is a playboy and a homeless but too much is left to the imagination of the spectators. Also I noticed that T. Williams and Henry James tend to picture Europeens like depraved people of the old world with its very dusty values and the Americans kind and naïve.

Both the serie and I have got older and weaker. It is not as good as the previous episodes. I wonder if the film makers were not under the influence of the 'Woke' theory. Also I begin to wonder what the cinema would do without the existence of the Nazis. There must be other badies. On the other hand, the young generation are kept informed of this dark part of History.

I would not call it a tale since it is the true story of a woman of her time. Max Ophuls has always an original way to film his narrative. However he didn't need to be that original since Lola's life was far from being common. Martine Carol has not always been a great actress. Like Brigitte Bardot, all she had to do was to appear on the screen and the audience would swoon over. Still the film is interesting by the way it is made and by showing the clash between the narrow minded of the 19th century society and a woman years ahead of her time. For the rest I would agree totally with NW's comment.

It is the opposite of everything they put on the enveloppe to advertise the film. It is sooo predictable, so corny! Of course one can say it is dated but there are many films in those days that were much better science fiction than that. People in a submarine (it looks like a sardine tin) are pretty scared by ridiculous events; even these great movie stars could not save the film, in fact the film 'drown' them.