Caught a preview of this about a week and half ago, and wasn't sure what to make of it. To be honest, I still don't know what I think of it! Basically, I didn't really like the songs very much, and the fact that they're wall-to-wall at the beginning was putting me off. It also makes the film quite dense, in that all the information is coming at you in verse and in song. By the end of the film I think some of the songs improved and actually the story ends very well - dark and tragic. Burton, Depp, Bonham Carter and Ferretti all do great work. I'm looking forward to seeing it again, but my initial impression is that it's a great film let down by poor music.
A great film, let down only by a couple of silly coincidences. I thought it was very well made – I really liked the understated nature of it and the approach it took to the violence (not shying away from it, but at the same time not glorifying or revelling in it). Solid work.
Very good, but flawed. At times some of the dialogue was a little cliched, and there was one scene which really let the whole film down by revealing a stupid coincidence before giving way to almost complete implausibility. However, even though the scene ruins the film in some respects, the strength of Marc Forster (and his regular team of collaborators) behind the camera means that the film manages to overcome its faults and remain, for the most part, a very solid piece of work.
As to be expected with a compilation of over thirty films, this is pretty hit and miss: some are absolutely stinkers, some are absolutely sublime (Inarritu's segment felt especially transcendent). To be honest, I'm the type of person who was never going to not enjoying seeing a host of the world's greatest directors making films about the cinema, and actually really enjoyed watching the whole thing (bad as some of them are, they never last more than a few minutes each...). I would probably say that in the overall balance there are more mediocre ones than good, but it's still interesting to see the different stylistic and narrative approaches which people have taken (and also to see so many similarities crop up between the films). In my opinion, other highlights in the set included the films by Salles, Yimou Zhang, Moretti, Kiarostami, WKW and Suleman. Overall I would highly recommend this.
Watched this again for the second time quite recently. Possibly liked it slightly less than I did the first time, but it's still extraordinary; filmmaking at it's best.
I thought this was entertaining enough and I can sort of see why it's been so popular over the years, but I have to admit that it didn't really do it for me. The songs are awful (sorry) and the film actually gets a little dull at times. I'm glad that I watched it, and I'd still recommend it on the strength that it's generally considered an undisputed classic, but I wouldn't personally call it a masterpiece. It's a solid piece, but that's about where it ends. Sorry.
I thought this was enjoyable and very atmospheric, even if the plot and ending were extremely predictable. Some of the set pieces were also very well handled and effective.
While I wouldn't agree, even for a second, with Andrew Sarris' statement that this is 'the greatest film of all time', I did think it was very good. The camera seemed a little more subdued than in some of Ophuls earlier work, but it's still as graceful as ever. The use of colour is also quite something. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a masterpiece, but it's a very strong piece of work.
This wasn't able to persuade me to like her paintings, but I did enjoy the film. It concentrated more on her relationships than it did on her creative process, which I think was a shame, and also perhaps a wasted opportunity. However, it did do what it did rather well and with some interesting stylistic flourishes (and some good, albeit very brief, animation from the Quays). However, I do have to admit that somehow I didn't find the whole thing totally convincing - I think this was probably to do with the large time-span of the film, something which is very hard to pull off and which I don't think the film was quite successful in. All in all though, I did it enjoy and I did think that it was a good film.
I thought this was great. The book it's based on is often compared to Arabian Nights, and I have to say that it also reminded me of some of the work of Calvino and Borges. Unfortunately, I thought that the film meandered a bit in the middle, but overall I thought it was really good and I think it holds up a lot better than a lot of the other so-called 'counter-culture classics'. It's beautiful, funny, intriguing, captivating and haunting. Highly recommended.
Having enjoyed the other Ophuls I've seen recently, I found this very disappointing. While I enjoyed and appreciated the filmmaking on display, the narrative left me cold and unengaged.
While I thought this film was very good, I don't think it's quite as magnificent as some of the reviews would have us believe. There's definitely thought behind it, it has a purpose and meaning, but I wouldn't go as far to say it's a particularly profound film. Interestingly, the use of voice-over in it reminded me of Barry Lyndon (not that it holds up for a second against that film). As one would expect from a film shot by Roger Deakins, it has some beautiful photography, and the film certainly contains some incredible sequences (the train robbery was especially effective). The acting is great throughout. It was definitely a very engrossing and very well made film, but I would say that it never truly transcends the boundaries of the 'very good'.