I'm just curious why in the world anyone would do such a thing. Is this on the level with Manos, Hands of Fate or Plan 9 From Outer Space ? No, I think this is more along the lines of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and The Seven Samurai.
share[deleted]
hilarious-- before coming to the message board i checked the votes and thought, "who the #^#$& would rate this a 1?" i guess i expect too much from the random idiots that populate the world, or maybe it is the rabbit lovers.
share[deleted]
As far as entertainment goes, "The Rules of the Game" well meets the criteria for a 1. It's influence on cinema is somewhat evident, so comming up with a score would merit it something over a 1. I cannot see someone being entertained by this. Renoir's direction is quality, but this is th most outrageously boring story ever put to film. I could care less about the demise in morale in upper-class french people during the first world war. I do not care, and it doesn't interest me the least bit. "Grand Illusion" on the other hand, is a film that deserves nothing else but a ten. The 2002 sight and sound magazine poll listed "Rules of the Game" as one of the top ten best films ever made, although even looking at it from a technical standpoint, it's pushing it, but apearantly i'm in a minority. "Grand Illusion" is a film far more important, entertaining and timeless. It provides the viewer with a commentary on something universal: war. The demise is french upper class culture and morale only mattered when Renoir made this film, and maybe it even mattered to the people who the film depicted. But War is always prevalant and somebody's experiences in war are always going to be more important and interesting than the story of ROTG. People begin to overanylyze films like this one and often forget that the ultimate purpose of cinema is to entertain, and once a film fails at that, no matter how well directed it was, it's failed at it's objective.
I'm sure somebody's going to disagree with me. I wouldn't rate this a 1, but it was really boring, espechially to be considered one of the greatest films ever. It was directed very well, thats about it, and in my eyes, that doesn't make a film great.
Also, inform me if any of you are actually concerned with the demise of upper class French families and culture during the start of the century.
If any of you haven't seen "grand Illusion" I'd highly reccomend it.
that's what you get when you misuse what i invent, your empire falls and you lose every cent
Well, I disagree with you. You say people overanalyze films like this , but then you talk about the demise in morale.
I don't know what that means, but I love this movie. To me it's a fun movie about people hanging out, taking a trip to the countryside and hunting rabbits. And Renoir told in a great way. I can watch this movie every day.
I'm even more impressed that he made it in 39, when the equipment was nothing like today. We are even lucky to have watched this movie, because the germans nearly destroyed all the prints during the second war. They also didn't like the movie.
I can't see the point in giving any work of art a NUMBER, whether it's a one or a one million, when you have words at your disposal to describe what you FEEL about it. Similarly Sight and Sound, which I've read since the 1960's, has always put me off with its 'Critics Top Ten', when it publishes the list side by side with articles such as 'Transcendentalism in Ozu's film-making', very rewarding to read - but would you wish to give such an article a number out of 5 or 10?. If you compare the cinema with other art forms, say painting, would you really feel a need to carry round in your head thoughts such as Picasso's 'Guernica' is only worth 4 stars compared to Munch's 'The Scream' which is definitely worth 5? I doubt it. Who is this numerical judgement for? Who benefits? This is not an election where the work of art with most votes wins.
share[deleted]
If this movie is worth 1 for the entertainment you must be pretty dumb.
You probably don't understand much of it to begin with.
Those of you who think no movie deserves a 1 never saw Hometown USA.
Since taste is subjective and every movie has it's fans and detractors (H USA does have fans too but I doubt it's the people who like this film so I'm pretty safe here) it's not very valid to say it's stupid to have your own taste.
Marianne
It's very, very minor Renoir - he's done much, much better. For me it doesn't only not work on any level, it's also excrutiatingly boring (and I've tried: I've seen this dud three times). There's a world of French cinema from the 1930s from Duvivier, Clair, Pialat and Renoir himself that leaves this in the dust and shows up its weaknesses. But I think the big reason is the arrogance of those who sing it's praises - look at how patronising so many of you have been about people who dislike what, to them, is a shallow and very boring film. That very snobbery and insistence on the perfection of a tangibly imperfect film is what sets people against it: the higher its reputation, the longer the drop to earth for those who aren't so easily impressed.
If this film were more realistically appraised, I'd probably have given it a 3/10: but the overpraise is so absurd that I just have to knock points off.
The name is a comment on his lack of screen charisma and not a private fantasy
Pialat films from the 1930s?
Very, very minor?
Yep, look 'em up - the Fanny/Marius/Cesar trilogy is the best known even though he didn't direct them all. And Regle is a very, very minor film, cliche ridden and almost completely unsuccessful - and that's why audiences rejected it in 1939. Take away the film's history and reputation and all that's left is Carry On Up the Chateau.
The name is a comment on his lack of screen charisma and not a private fantasy
He's right yanno. Fanny/Marius/Caesar and their stories of old Marseilles are probably the finest French films of the epoch. Especially if you have a grasp of the language.
Having lived in France and religiously devoured the monochromatic history of their film industry on FR3 at 8pm every day, I'm also of the opinion that dry toast, no butter, pales into insignificance when set against an overflowing fresh pain bagnat.
Look, I'm not being prejudiced because it's a classic or anything, but there is no way it's a minor Renoir film, and I really think it doesn't deserve anything under an 8.
As it is my favourite movie of all time, I gave it a 10/10 but really, giving it a 5 or below is just silly.
Just look at all the immersive intrigues and plots, and wonderful camerawork.
I just couldn't take my eyes of it, I thought it was as close to perfect as you can be.
You will find that Pialat had nothing do do with Pagnol's Fanny trilogy.
Now, can you tell us what Renoir's MAJOR works might be?
Please recognize the term "perspective" when branding something as boring. I, for one, adored this film. Simply on the basis of entertainment I would give it a 9 or 10.
shareThe only reason why I hate this movie is because the director had a prolonged scene where the characters slaughter birds and rabbits. It's a nice, symbolic, allagorical piece of *beep* The director tried to show how the hunt held no meaning for the characters, but ended up being a hypocrit because he slaughtered a bunch of animals for a movie.
I'm not a veggitarian, but I have a problem with actual dead used just for the sake of a film. If those rabbits and birds were later eaten by the cast/crew/somebody, then I'm more okay with it. But if they did it JUST for the film, then I hope somebody *beep* on Renoir's grave.
Why is it that no one slaughters real people just to make a movie? I'd like to see that for once.
' If those rabbits and birds were later eaten by the cast/crew/somebody, then I'm more okay with it.'
That is a ridiculous thing to say, is that where you draw the line? You hate a film because you suspect Rabbits that were killed during filming weren't eaten by the cast or crew?
What if Tom Hanks runs over a peacock during the shooting of his next film? Should you even bother watching?
You probably drive a car but have no problem with actual people dying over oil or petrol do you?
It's not a very good film - a crudely made farce with the least interesting camerawork of any Renoir film of the 30s (La Bete Humaine and Crime de Monsieur Lange are both more adventurous), indifferently acted at best and ascribed qualities it never possessed with hindsight. At best it's 5/10, but with so many people seeing a fine suit of clothes on this particular emperor, I'm sure plenty of people are simply reacting against the unwarranted praise and the arrogance of those who insist that anyone who doesn't care for its clumsy satire must be an idiot.
"Gentlemen, is this a great moment or a small one? I'm afraid I don't know."
Surely not wasting the death of an animal, and using it for food (as nature intends it) is more acceptable than simply killing it on screen and leaving it to rot?
No, I do not support people dying over oil or petrol. That is a ridiculous thing to say.
If I rated movies, I would give this a 1.
I hate it. Stupid concept that I've seen a thousand times. The end.
If I rated movies, I would give this a 1.Wow, you must be, like, wicked smart.
I hate it. Stupid concept that I've seen a thousand times. The end.
very overrated movie.
Unlike others, I don't like a movie just cause others say it is a classic.
[deleted]
Its a well made film and one that is impressive on virtually every level, but the fact is most people would consider it boring. It isn't a fast paced movie, it is slow, gradual and features sophisticated humor. Not a bad thing, but most certainly not for everybody.
Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and The Seven Samurai.
[deleted]
I'm also surprised by the amount of disrespect this film seems to be getting. It truly is a whirlwind of a movie that innovates well beyond its years.
I'm tempted to start a thread advocating this masterpiece just to offset the vitriol that seems to coming in on the first page.
Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head."